Skip to main content

Full text of "Notes on the diplomatic history of the Jewish question : with texts of protocols, treaty stipulations and other public acts and official documents"

See other formats











All right* reurved. 

Price to Non-Members, Half-a-Guinet 











Mocatta Library and Museum 

University College 

(University of London) 

All rights reserved 


The substance of this volume was read as a Paper before the 
Jewish Historical Society of England on February 11, 1918. 
It has now been expanded and supplied with a full equipment 
of documents — Protocols of Congresses and Conferences, Treaty 
Stipulations, Diplomatic Correspondence and other public Acts — 
in the hope that it may prove useful as a permanent record, 
and serviceable to those of our communal organisations whose 
duty it will be to bring the still unsolved aspects of the Jewish 
Question before the coming Peace Conference. 

Besides helping to indicate the lines on which Jewish action 
should travel in this matter, the State Papers here quoted may 
also serve to remind the Plenipotentiaries themselves that the 
Jewish Question is far from being a subsidiary issue in the 
Eeconstruction of Europe, that they have a great tradition of 
effort and achievement in regard to it, and that this tradition, 
apart from the high merits of the task itself, imposes upon them 
the solemn obligation of solving the Question completely and 
finally now that the opportunity of doing so presents itself 
free from all restraints of a selfish and calculating diplomacy. 
It is not only that the edifice of Eeligious Liberty in Europe 
has to be completed, but also that some six millions of human 
beings have to be freed from political and civil disabilities and 
social and economic restrictions which for calculated cruelty 
have no parallels outside the Dark Ages. The Peace Conference 
will have accomplished relatively little if a shred of this blackest 
of all European scandals is allowed to survive its deliberations. 


This collection does not pretend to be complete. The aim 
has been only to illustrate adequately the main lines of the 
theme with a view to practical questions which may arise in 
connection with the Peace Conference. American documents 
have been only sparely quoted, for the reason that the American 
Jewish Historical Society has already published a very full 
collection of such documents. (Cyrus Adler : " Jews in the 
Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States.") The many 
generous interventions of the Vatican on behalf of persecuted 
Jews have also been omitted partly for a similar reason (see 
Stern : " Urkundliche Beitrage iiber die Stellung der Papste zu 
den Juden") and partly because they have very little direct 
bearing on the diplomatic activities of the Great Powers during 
the period under discussion. 

My grateful acknowledgements are due to the Foreign 
Office for kindly permitting me to copy the documents relating 
to Palestine, which will be found appended to Chapter IV, and 
to Lieut. J. B. Morton, who was good enough to relieve me 
of much of the work of reading the proof-sheets. I have also to 
thank Mr. D. Mitrani for the generous help he gave me in 
preparing the Index. 

L. W. 

Gray's Inn, London. 
December 1918. 



On International Religious Liberty Generally 


(a) Persecution of the Jews in Bohemia (1744-1745) 7 
Documents — 

Petition to King George II, 1744 .... 7 

Appeal of Bohemian Jews, 1744 .... 9 

The Decree of the Empress, 1744 .... 10 

Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna, 1744 11 

(6) The Congress of Vienna (1815) . . . .12 

Documents — 
List from Kluber . . . . . . .14 

Art. XVI of Annexe IX of Final Act of Congress, 1815 . 14 

(c) The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) . . 15 

Document — 

Protocol of Nov. 21, 1818 16 

(d) The Conference of London (1830) ... 17 

Document — 

Protocol of Feb. 3, 1830 17 

(e) The Congress of Paris (1856-1858) ... 18 

Documents — 

Art. IX of the Treaty of Paris, 1856 ... 21 

Extracts from the Hatti-Humayoun of Feb. 18, 1856 21 
Conferences of Constantinople : Protocol of Feb. 11, 

1856 23 

Art. XLVI of Convention of Paris of Aug. 10, 1858 23 



(0 The Congress of Berlin (1878) .... 23 

Documents — 
Extracts from Protocols of June 24, 25, 26, and 28, and 

July 1, 4, and 10, 1878 25 

Extracts from Treaty of Berlin : Arts. XLIV and LXII, 

1878 33 

Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury, Oct. 25, 1879 34 
Identic Note to Rumanian Government, Feb. 20, 1880 35 

(g) Rumania and the Powers (1902) .... 36 

Documents — 
Dispatch from Mr. John Hay to U.S. Minister at Athens, 

July 17, 1902 38 

American Circular Note to the Great Powers, Aug. 11, 

1902 44 

Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate, Sept. 2, 1902 ... 44 

(h) The Conferences of London, St. Petersburg, and 

Bucharest (1912-1913) 45 

Documents — 

Conference of Bucharest : Protocol of July 23, 1913 . 47 
Jewish Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, 

Oct. 13, 1913 .' 48 

Sir Eyre A. Crowe to Conjoint Committee, Oct. 29, 1913 51 

Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Nov. 13, 1913 51 

The same to the same, March 12, 1914 ... 52 

(i) The Jewish Question and the Balance of Power 

(1890 and 1906) 54 

Document — 
The proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance : Secret 
Russian Memorandum, Jan. 3, 1906 ... 57 


(a) Status of Jews in Foreign Countries ... 63 
Document — 

Art. XIV, Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699 .... 71 

Interpretation by Austrian Government, Dec. 28, 1815 71 



Arts. I, III, and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, 1827 
Secret Note by French Negotiator, Aug. 7, 1826 
Speech of King Louis-Philippe, Nov. 5, 1835 
Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty, June 30, 1864 
Art. I, Anglo-Swiss Treaty, Sept. 6, 1855 . 
Art. I, American-Swiss Treaty, Nov. 6, 1855 
Interpretation by United States, 1857 
Mr. Seward to U.S. Minister in Switzerland, Sept. 14 


Art. I, Russo-American Treaty, 1832 . 

Mr. Blaine to U.S. Minister in St. Petersburg, July 29 


Resolution of U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 13 


Resolution of U.S. Senate, Dec. 20, 1911 . 
Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, 1859 
Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881 . 
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Goldsmid, Jan. 29 


Sir Edward Grey to Jewish Conjoint Committee, Oct 


Art. XIII, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856 











(b) Consular Protection .... 

Documents — 
Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies, Feb. 1, 


Art. Ill, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1727-28 . 
Art. Ill, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856. 
Art. IV, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856 . 
Franco-Moorish Reglement, Aug. 19, 1863 . 

(c) The Conferences op Madrid (1880) and Algeciras 

(1906) 88 

Documents — 

Madrid: Protocols of May 20 and June 24, 1880 90 

Art. VI, Treaty of Madrid, 1880 .... 91 




Edict of the Sultan of Morocco, 1864 .... 92 

Madrid : Protocol of June 26, 1880 .... 92 

Algeciras : Protocol of April 2, 1906 .... 98 



Documents — 
Russian Memorandum, Oct. 1840 
Austrian Memorandum, Oct. 1840 
Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palme rston, Feb. 23, 1841 
Memoire of the King of Prussia, Feb. 24, 1841 . 
Baron Biilow to Lord Palmerston, March 6, 1841 
Lord Beauvale to Lord Palmerston, March 2, 1841 
Lord Palmerston to Lord Beauvale, March 11, 1841 
Further Austrian Memorandum, March 31, 1841 
Col. Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore, June 14, 1841 
The same to the same, Aug. 15, 1842 


Resolution of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Nov. 8, 1843 123 

Col. Churchill to the Board of Deputies, Jan. 8, 1843 . 123 
Art. V of Agreement between Great Britain, France 

and Russia, Feb. 21, 1917 124 

Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild, Nov. 2, 1917 . . 124 


International Anti-Semitism in 1498 .... 126 

Document — 
Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz to Ferdinand and Isabella, 
July 18, 1498 126 

INDEX 127 






The Jewish Question is part of the general question of Religious 
Toleration. Together with the questions relating to the toleration 
of " Turks and Infidels," it raises the question of Religious Liberty 
in its most acute form. It is both local and international. Locally 
it seeks a solution through Civil and Political Emancipation on the 
basis of Religious Toleration. Internationally it arises when a State 
or combination of States which has been gained to the cause of 
Religious Toleration intervenes for the protection or emancipation 
of the oppressed Jewish subjects of another State. There have been, 
however, at least two occasions when the interventions have taken 
the contrary form of efforts to promote the persecution or restraint 
of Jews as such. 1 

As an altruistic form of international action the principle of 
intervention has been of slow growth. It required an atmosphere 
of toleration on a wide scale, and, before this atmosphere could be 
created, Christian States had to learn toleration for themselves by 
a hard experience of its necessity. They had, in the first place, to 
secure toleration for their own nationals and the converts of their 
Churches in heathen countries where the people could not be coerced 
or lectured with impunity. In the next place they had to achieve 
toleration among themselves. 

1 Infra, pp. 57-62 and Appendix. 



Toleration among the Christian Churches — the so-called paace 
of Christendom — -became necessary owing to the struggle between the 
Reformation and the Counter-Reformation ; but it took the Thirty 
Years' War to prove its necessity. The proof is embodied for all 
time in the Peace of Westphalia — chiefly in the Treaty of Osnabruck, 
which was signed in 1648, at the same time as the famous Treaty of 
Munster. The ostensible effect of the Peace of Westphalia was to 
place Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on an equal legal foot- 
ing throughout Europe. A secondary effect was to give a very marked 
stimulus to the cause of Religious Liberty generally. We may recog- 
nise its first fruits in, among other things, the campaign for 
unrestricted religious toleration during the Commonwealth in England, 
and its application to the Jews. 2 

It was not until 1814 that this principle was extended by Treaty 
beyond the pale of Christendom. This was in the Protocol of the 
four allied Powers — Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria — 
by which the union of Belgium with Holland was recognised. The 
return of the House of Orange to the Netherlands after the fall of 
Napoleon had entailed the promulgation of a new Constitution, which, 
in view of the democratic traditions of the French occupation, was 
necessarily of a liberal type. Among its concessions was an article 
granting the fullest religious liberty. When the Powers were called 
upon to sanction the union with Belgium, they did so on condition 
that the new Constitution should be applied to the whole country, 
and, in view of the religious differences prevailing, emphasised the 
article on Religious Liberty. This is the form in which it appears 
in the Protocol : — 

Art. I. — Cette reunion devra etre entiere et complete, de facon que 
les 2 Pays ne forment qu'un seul et meme Etat regi par la Constitution 
deja etablie en Hollande, et qui sera modiflee, d'un commun accord, 
d'apres les nouvelles eirconstances. 

Art. II. — II ne sera rien innove aux Articles de cette Constitution qui 
assurent a tous les Cultes une protection et une faveur egales, et garan- 
tissent l'admission de tous les Citoyens, quelle que soit leur croyanoe reli- 
gieuse, aux emplois et offices publics. 

2 Wolf : MenasseJi b. Israels Mission to Oliver Cromwell, pp. xviii et seq. 


Incidentally the legal effect of this stipulation was to emancipate 
the Dutch Jews, though, as a matter of fact, the few disabilities under 
which they laboured did not immediately disapp ;ar. The Protocol was 
afterwards ratified by the Congress of Vienna and added to the Final 
Act as part of the Tent'i Annexe, 28 though in other respects the Con- 
gress did not evince a very generous conception of Religious Liberty. 

The conquest of religious liberty for Christians in heathen lands 
was a more convincing object lesson than the Peace of Westphalia. 
It was difficult for one Christian Church to acknowledge its equality 
with another Christian Church and to tolerate heresy, but it was 
far more distasteful to have to come to terms with the heathen and 
to accept toleration at his hands. 

This was not altogether an altruistic form of political action. 
It was in some of its aspects part of the elementary duty of every 
State to protect its nationals in foreign countries. 

The earliest instances of this action we find in China, where, in 
the thirteenth century, the Papacy concluded Treaties with the Mongol 
Emperors- for the protection of Christian Missions. 3 It was not, 
however, until the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858 that Great Britain and 
France secured religious liberty for Christians in China. 

In the Mussulman Levant, toleration for foreign Christians was 
secured by the so-called Capitulations. These were, in effect, treaties, 
although they were in the form of grants by the Sultans. They gave 
large exterritorial jurisdiction to the Ambassadors and Consuls of 
the States on whom they were conferred. The earliest grant of this 
kind occurs in the ninth century, when the Emperor Charlemagne 
obtained guarantees for his subjects visiting the Levant from the 
famous Khalif Haroun al-Rashid. 4 Later on, all the leading Christian 
States negotiated Capitulations with the Sultans. The existing British 
Capitulations are dated 1675, but an earlier grant was made in 1583. 

One of the main objects of the Capitulations, besides personal 
security and trading rights, was to assure religious liberty for the 

2a The Protocol was accepted by the Dutch King on July 21, 1814. Its text 
will ba found in British and Foreign Slate Papers, ii. 141-142. 

3 Guasco : " L'figlise Catholique et la Liberte Religieuse dans l'Empire 
Chinois " {Revue Generate de Droit International Public, x. 53 et sej. 

* Verney and Dambmann : Puissances Elrangeres dans le Levant, pp. 69-80. 


nationals of the grantees. This benefited Jews at an early date, 
as the Capitulations and similar treaties generally provided for 
certain immunities for the native interpreters, servants and other 
employees of the privileged foreigners. As Jews were frequently so 
employed, they thus acquired protection against Moslem fanaticism. 

In this way arose the system of Consular Protection which was 
long a boon to Jews in the Ottoman Empire and in the Barbary States. 5 

In spite of these experiences the idea of diplomatic intervention 
for the promotion of religious toleration in foreign States, especially 
on behalf of non-Christians, has only prevailed within narrow limits. 
It has been largely circumvented by the fact that such interventions 
must, even with the best will in the world, be more or less conditioned 
by the raison d'etat. Unless they are likely to promote policy, or at 
any rate to coincide with policy, the usual course when they are 
invoked is to take refuge in the so-called principle of non-intervention. 

It was, indeed, not until the seventeenth century that the question 
was seriously discussed at all by the jurists, although Cromwell had 
already laid down the splendid principle, in the case of the persecution 
of the Vaudois, that " to be indifferent to such things is a great sin, 
and a deeper sin still is it to be blind to them from policy or ambition." 
The first impulses of the international lawyers were much in the 
Cromwellian spirit. Bacon, Grotius, and Pufiendorff all strongly 
maintained the legality not only of diplomatic but also of armed 
intervention to put down tyranny or misgovernment in a neighbouring 
State, and a century later they were followed by Vattel. Sweden 
acted upon the principle in her intervention on behalf of the Protest- 
ants of Poland in 1707, and, in 1792, it was given its widest scope, and 
was formally adopted, by the French Revolution in the famous decree 
of the Convention which promised " fraternity and succour to all 
peoples who wish to recover their liberty." 

The doctrine, however, lingered only anaemically through the 
early decades of the nineteenth century. In face of the growing 
delicacy of the international system, it was gradually abandoned 
for the conservative principle of non-intervention, based on the 

6 Infra, pp. 83 et seq. 


independence and equality of all States. 6 But even this principle 
has not always been observed in regard to small States, although, 
curiously enough, Russia invoked it against Great Britain for the 
protection of King " Bomba " of Sicily, in the case of the Neapolitan 
prison horrors.' Abstention from intervention in certain glaring 
cases of inhumanity by foreign Governments — such as the persecution 
of the Russian Jews — has been defended on the ground of absence 
of treaty rights, but, as a matter of fact, this argument, too, has not 
been consistently adhered to. 8 In all cases, whether of great or 
small States, treaty rights or no treaty rights, the real test has almost 
always been the frigid raison d'etat. The United States has been 
less affected by this restriction than the European Powers, and on 
many occasions has shown a really noble example of the purest 
altruism in international politics. 83 

* The historical and juridical aspects of the question have been fully discussed 
by Professor Rougier in the Revue Generate de Droit International Public, xvii. 468 
it seq. 

7 Martin : Life of the Prince Consort, iii. 510-51 1. 

8 For a vigorous exposition of the duty of civilised States in such cases, see 
Prof. A. Dicey's introduction to Legal Sufferings of the Jews in Russia, p. i. 

8a See Straus : The American Spirit (New York). For documentary examples 
relating to the Jews, see Cyrus Adler : Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the 
United Slates. 


Long before the Peace of Westphalia an attempt was made by 
the famous Jewess, Donna Gracia Nasi, to obtain protection for 
her persecuted co-religionists by diplomatic action, and it proved 
successful. The circumstances will be narrated presently. 9 It stood, 
however, alone for two hundred years. Even after the Peace eminent 
Jews, who sought in a like way to enlist the sympathy and help of 
European governments, failed. Menasseh ben Israel made repre- 
sentations in this sense on behalf of the oppressed Jews of Poland, 
Prussia, Spain, and Portugal to both Queen Christina of Sweden and 
Oliver Cromwell, but although he met with much and genuine sym- 
pathy he found the raison d'etat — and probably also a lingering 
reluctance to regard Jews as quite within the pale of humanity — 
too strong for him. 10 A decade later a similar attempt was made 
by Fernando Mendes da Costa, one of the founders of the Anglo- 
Jewish Community, and a member of a very distinguished Portuguese 
Marrano family. From a letter of his which is still extant, 11 it seems 
that he was deeply concerned in helping the persecuted Marranos 
in Spain and Portugal, and he had a scheme for organising an emigra- 
tion of his hapless brethren on a large scale to Italy and England. 
He received much help from Don Francisco Manuel de Mello, the 
distinguished Portuguese soldier, author and diplomatist, and through 
him interested Queen Katharine of Braganza and Charles II in 
the scheme. It appears, too, that, with the support of these eminent 
personages, the scheme was brought to the notice of the Pope, but 
of its subsequent fate we know nothing. 

• Infra, pp. 63-64. 

10 Kayserling : " MenaBseh b. Israel " (Misc. Heb. Lit. ii. 29) ; Harhian 
Miscellany, vii. 618. 

11 Brit. Mub. Add. MSS. 29,868,/. 1. 




The earliest actual intervention of a Great Power on behalf of the 
Jews on humanitarian grounds took place in 1744-45, when Great 
Britain and Holland made strong and successful representations 
to the Government of the Empress Maria Theresa for the protection 
of the Jews of Bohemia and Moravia. The intervening Powers 
were allies of the Empress in the War of the Austrian Succession 
which was then raging. During the war some prejudice had been 
caused to the Austrian Jews through the imprudence of some of their 
co-religionists in Lorraine, who had obtained " safe conducts " from 
the French Military Authorities to enable them to cross the frontier 
into France. Reprisals against the Jews in Bohemia and Moravia 
were taken by the Empress in the shape of a decree of wholesale 
banishment. The decree was enforced with the utmost severity, 
and over 20,000 Jews were compelled to leave Prague in the depth 
of winter, with little or no prospect of finding shelter elsewhere. 
Appeals for help were addressed to foreign communities, and among 
the recipients of them was Aaron Franks, then presiding Warden 
of the Great Synagogue in London. Together with his wealthy and 
influential relative, Moses Hart, he at once petitioned King George, 
who consented to receive him in personal audience. His Majesty 
manifested every sympathy with the persecuted Jews, and the result 
was that the British Ambassador in Vienna 12 was instructed to make 
representations, in concert with the Dutch Ambassador, to the Austrian 
Government. The representations were received in excellent spirit, 
and, in deference to them, the Empress consented to revoke the 
decree and permit the Jews to return to their homes. 13 

Petition to Kino George II (B.M. AM. MSS. 23.819, /. 63). 
To his Most Sacred Majesty 

The Petition of Moses Hart and Aaron Franks of the City of London 
Merchants In behalf of their Brethren the Distressed Jews of the 
Kingdom of Bohemia. 

12 Sir Thomas Robinson, " l'infatigable Robinson " of Carlyle's Frederick, 
afterwards Lord Grantham. 13 Graetz : Oeschichte der Juden, x. 393-394. 


Humbly Sheweth 

That your Majesty's Petitioners have receiv'd a Copy of an Edict 
published and Issued by Her Majesty the Queen of Hungary from their 
said Brethren the Jews of the said Kingdom of Bohemia by which (to- 
gether with several letters that have been transmitted to them Request- 
ing them to Commiserate their distress'd condition and Interceed with 
his Brittanick Majesty on their behalf) it appears that then- said Brethren 
are to be utterly Expelled the said Kingdom and that by the last day of 
January next Ensuing No Jew is to be found in any of the Towns belonging 
to Prague That after the Expiration of six Months to be accounted from 
the said last day of January No Jew is to be suffered or found in the Here- 
ditary Dominion of her said Majesty, and in case any should be found they 
are to suffer Military Chastisement. 

Your Petitioners most humbly beg leave to observe that in the said 
Edict there is no reason or cause assign' d for the Expulsion of their said 
Brethren who therefore Suspect that it is fomented by their inveterate 
enemies for motives which they cannot account for as they have always 
acted as dutiful, Faithful and Loyal Subjects to their most Gracious 
Sovereign the said Queen of Hungary even during the many Revolutions 
that have happened in Prague within these few Years and notwithstanding 
the great Devastation and Excesses which Naturally occur'd therefrom 
they have continued and still do continue firm and unshaken in their 
Principles of Affection & Fidelity to her said Majesty and her most 
Illustrious House. 

Your Petitioners far from Vindicating any Particular Persons in the 
Crimes they may have committed during the last Revolution (if any such 
there are) desire Adequate Punishments to be inflicted on them ; but 
humbly hope that the Innocent will not be permitted to suffer for Crimes 
which they have in no wise been Accessary to and humbly Remonstrate 
that the Expulsion of fifty thousand Familys and upwards from their 
Native Country at so critical a Juncture who (as Your Petitioners are in- 
formed and believe) always Contributed and Concurr'd in strengthening 
her Majesty's hands against her Enemies must in its consequences prove 
Detrimental and Prejudicial to the true Interest of the common Cause and 
more immediately so to her Hungarian Majesty. 

In tender Consideration whereof Your Petitioners (in behalf of the 
aforesaid distress'd people) mott humbly Supplicate your Majesty in your 
great & known Equity & Compassion to Interpose Your Majesty's Good 
Offices upon this Occasion with the Queen of Hungary in order to prevail 
upon her said Majesty to revoke the said Edict or at least to Suspend 
the time of the Expulsion of their said Brethren & to establish a Com- 
mission of Enquiry in order to discriminate the Innocent from the 


Guilty and Punish those only who have deserv'd her said Majesty's 

And Your Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray &c. 

Moses Hart. 
Aaron Franks. 
(Endorsed :) 

Moses Hart & Aaron Franks Petition in behalf of the Bohemian 

Jews &o. in Ld. Harrington's of the ' 1745. 

8 Jany. 

sent to Sir Thos. Robinson 27 [sic] Deer. 1744. 

Appeal op the Bohemian Jews (Ibid. f. 64). 

Prague, 1st Deer. 1744. N.S. 

It is Certainly very Notorious all the Callamities Which have over- 
whelm'd us to such a Degree that we had hardly power to Withstand them, 
but None were in Competition with this Last, by a Decree from her Majesty 
our Sovereign Queen of Hungaria. To Banish all the Jews out of the 
Kingdom of Bohemia. Within the Term of 5 Weeks. Which is the Latter 
End of January for those in Prague. & those in Bohemia are allow'd 6 
Months, as appears by the original Decree of Her Majesty — Therefore What 
shall we poor Souls do, in the first place, the Children Women, infirm & 
Aged. Which are not in a Condition to Walk. Especially at this present 
Juncture Being Cold & frosty Weather. Likewise In the Condition we are 
at Present in for the Stripd many Hundreds quite to their shirts. Not 
only that, but the World Is Closed to us. by reason all Roads are filled 
with Troops. Which way Soever we Turn we Can find no Relief. Neither 
do we know the reason for the Decree. Excepting some false persons. 
Who Contrive falsities on purpose To breed fll will against us by our Lords 
Who Protected us. Which they have Done. 

Therefore Brethren. We Humbly Beg you wou'd Commiserate our 
Condition Considering the Eminent Danger Many Thousands Souls are in 
by this Decree. & Not Delay Interceeding for Recommendations from 
all Courts that we may have time allowed us. for a Commission of Inquiry. 

Simon Spira &c 

Moses Izaac. 

Simon Cohen. 

Menahem Mendal. 


Samuel Spira. 

Meyer Moses, &c. 


(Endorsed :) 

Representation from the Jews at Prague 

28 Deer 

Sent to Sir Thos. Robinson - 1744-5. 

Jany 8. 

The Decree op the Empress (Ibid. fol. 66). 

After Mature Deliberation We have been Induced by many weighty 
Reasons and Consideration-; to resolve and Determine that no Jew shall 
hereafter be Suffered or permitted to Dwell in our Hereditary Kingdom 
of Bohemia, which our Resolution, We Will Shall be put in Execution in 
Manner following. 

1st. That on the last Day of the Month of January 1745 next En- 
suing No Jew shall be found in any of our Towns belonging to Prague, and 
in Case any shall, Military Chastisement shall be inflicted on them. 

2nd. They are hereby permitted to Stay and remain in the Kingdom 
six Months to be Accounted from the Latter end of December Instant and 
to Determine at the latter end of the Month of June 1745 to Settle their 
Affairs and in order to Dispose of their Effects Estate and Credit which 
they shall not be able to Carry with them by the last Day of January. 

That after their retreat from Prague (towards the Country) on the 
last day of January as is aforementioned, No Jew shall be permitted to 
Reenter the said City by Day (without having a Certificate from the Com- 
missary appointed to Execute the Contents hereof) and absolutely None 
shall be Suffered to Stay a Single Night ; And the Said Commissary is hereby 
Directed to take the Necessary Precautions for Executing this Our Will 
and Pleasure, and due Care that None of his Certificatis be Improperly 
made use of by Enabling them to Enter the City too frequently excepting 
such as he shall grant thro' favour to the Principal Merchants who will 
stand in Greater Need than others of entring the City often. 

3rd. After the Determination of the said Six Months all the Jews shall 
quitt all our Hereditary Kingdom of Bohemia and Shall Never more be 
found on the Borders thereof, and in Case any Shall, Military Chastise 
ment shall be inflicted on them as aforesaid. 

4th. Our Meaning and Intention is not only that the Jews of the City 
of Prague and all other-: who live in any Part of our Hereditary Kingdom 
of Bohemia shall quitt the Same within the Thirtieth day of June 1745 but 
also that Xo Jew thall on the said Day be found in the said Kingdom or 
Settle in any of our Hereditary Countrys. 

5th. And we do hereby Ordain and Appoint our Trusty and Well- 
beloved Privy Councellor and Vice President of the Royal Bohemian 
Kingdom The Right Honourable Philip Knakowsky Count Collowrath 


punctually to perform the Contents hereof hereby requiring all and Every 
Person whom these Presents or the Execution thereof may Concern to aid 
and Assist the said Philip Count Collowrath and Do hereby further Positively 
Order that the Contents hereof be Published in the Towns belonging to 
Prague and our whole Country to the End that no Intelligence be given 
thereof to those who Shall have any Dealings and Transactions with Jews. 
Witness Ourself 

Given at Vienna the 18th day of December 1744. 

Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna (Ibid. fols. 6l-6ld.). 


Whitehall, 28th Deer. 1744. 

Sir, — The principal Merchants of the Jewish Nation established here, 
having made an humble Application to His Majesty, that he would be 
pleased to intercede with the Queen of Hungary for a Reversal of the Sentence 
passed upon Their Brethren in Bohemia (amounting, as They affirm, to no 
less than Sixty Thousand Famines), by Her Majesty's late Edict, whereby 
They are ordered to depart that Kingdom in Six Months time, and His 
Majesty finding that the States General have already interposed Their Good 
Offices in Their Behalf ; It is the King's Pleasure, that you should join with 
Mor. Burmannia in endeavouring to dissuade the Court of Vienna from 
putting the said Sentence in Execution, hinting to Them in the tenderest 
and most friendly Manner, the Prejudice that the World might conceive 
against the Queen's Proceedings in that Affair, if such Numbers of innocent 
People were made to suffer for the Fault of some few Traytors, and, at the 
same time, shewing Them, the great Loss that would accrue to Her Majesty's 
Revenue, and to the Wealth and Strength of her Kingdom of Bohemia, 
by depriving it at once of so vast Numbers of it's Inhabitants : You will 
find inclosed the Petition presented to His Majesty by the Jews here, as 
above-mentioned, together with the Representation sent hither to Them 
from Those in Bohemia, and I am to add to what is above, that, as His 
Majesty does extremely commiserate the terrible circumstances of Dis- 
tress to which so many poor and innocent Families must be reduced, if 
this Edict takes place, He is most earnestly desirous of procuring the Repeal 
of it by His Royal Intercession, in such Manner that the Guilty only may 
be brought to Punishment, for obtaining which, you are to exert yourself 
with all possible Zeal and Diligence. 
I am, Sir, 

Your most obedient humble Servant, 

Sir Thomas Robinson. 



The next appearance of the Jewish Question in the field of inter- 
national politics was at the Congress of Vienna, sixty years later. 
The Congress was not favourable to liberal reforms of any kind, either 
national or religious. Its aim was to vindicate the vested interests 
of Legitimism against the doctrines of the French Revolution. In 
its final shape the policy of the Congress was embodied in the Holy 
Alliance. British foreign policy, then under the guidance of Castle- 
reagh, was distinctly favourable to this policy. Nevertheless, there 
were curious cross-currents at the Congress, and what liberalism 
there was came, strangely enough, in large part from the Russian 
Tsar, Alexander I. He had moments of liberalism so pronounced 
that Metternich called him " the crowned sans-culotte." 

It is curious to note that the Jewish Board of Deputies in England 
did not move during the Congress. The reason is perhaps not 
difficult to understand. They were always timid in regard to high 
politics, and, in 1783, when it was proposed to address the King on 
the American Peace, they actually passed a resolution declaring 
that it was their duty to avoid such " political concerns." l4 In the 
case of the Congress of Vienna, however, they may well have felt 
that they could not touch the question of religious liberty, and 
especially of Jewish emancipation, without risking an imputation of 
Jacobinism. Moreover, the British Cabinet then in power was a 
Coalition Cabinet of pro-Catholics and anti-Catholics, and they could 
not well listen to any proposals that they should champion Jewish 
emancipation in Vienna, while in Downing Street the question of 
Roman Catholic emancipation could not even be discussed. 

Fortunately, these considerations did not apply to the German 
Jews. Frankfurt and the Hansa towns sent deputations to Vienna 
to plead the cause of Jewish emancipation. The Frankfurt deputa- 
tion was headed by Jacob Baruch, father of Ludwig Boerne. They 
managed to secure the support of both Hardenberg and Metternich, 
and when it was found that the Tsar was not averse from some con- 
cession to the Jews, they agreed to propose the insertion of a clause — 

14 Emanuel : A Century and a Half of Anglo-Jewish History, p. 9. 


or rather half a clause — in the Final Act of the Conference providing for 
the gradual extension of civil rights to the Jews of Germany. 

Unfortunately for a long time this concession remained a dead 
letter, owing not only to the ill-will of the German Governments 
themselves, but to an apparently harmless verbal amendment which 
was introduced into the clause by the Redaction Committee at the 
last moment. In the final alinea it was stipulated that " the rights 
already conferred on the Jews in the several Federated States shall 
be maintained." The object of this was to secure to the Jews of 
Germany the liberties granted to them by Napoleon during the French 
occupation. This design was frustrated by the Redaction Committee , 
at whose instance the word " by " was substituted for " in," 
the result being that the rights secured to the Jews were not 
those of the French occupation, but only those which had been 
grudgingly, and in very small measure, granted to them by the 
Federated States themselves in the dark days before the Napoleonic 

Thus ' the provision of the Treaty of Vienna relating to the 
Jews of Germany remained a dead letter, partly because of the 
amendment introduced into it at the last moment, and partly 
because the authorities had no intention of carrying it out. The 
Jews complained, and both Prussia and Austria, under the influence 
of Hardenberg and Metternich, protested. 15 Nathan Rothschild in 
London brought the case of the recalcitrant Frankfurt authorities to 
the notice of the Duke of Wellington, who persuaded Castlereagh in 
1816 to make representations with a view to their protection. 18 All 
these efforts, however, proved futile, and Nathan Rothschild could 
only avenge himself by the public announcement that his firm would 
refuse to accept bills drawn in any German city where the Jews were 
denied their treaty rights. 17 

16 Graetz : Geschichle, xi. 324-328. See also Kohler : Jewish Rights al- 
Internaticmal Congresses, pp. 6-20. 

16 Diary of Sir Moses Montefiore, 1817, p. 192. (Ramsgate Theological College 
MSS.) Kohler : op. cit. pp. 25-26. 

17 Communication from the late Mr. Leopold de Rothschild. See also Qenile 
man's Magazine, Oct. 1819, p. 362. 



The following is a list of the documents relating to the Jewish Question 
at the Vienna Congress given in Kluber : " Akten des Wiener 

1. Unterthanige Vorstellung und Bittschrift der Israeli tischen Gemeinde 
zu Frankfurt-am-Main an den hohen Kongress zu Wien mit Beilage iiber- 
geben daselbst am 10** n Oktober 1814. 

2. Schreiben des Deputierten der Israelitisehen Gemeinde zu Frank - 

furt/M an den Kbniglichen-Preussischen ersten Herrn Bevollmachtigten 

Fiirsten von Hardenberg wegen Erhaltung der von dem Grossherzog von 

Frankfurt jener Gemeinde bewilligten Rechtzustandes. Datiert Wien, 
12 ten Mai ^ 1815 

3. Antwort seiner Durchlaucht des Fiirsten von Hardenberg auf 
vorstehendes Schreiben. Datiert Wien, 18 ten Mai, 1815. 

4. Erlass des Kaiserlich-Oesterreiohischen ersten Bevollmachtigten 
und Kongress-Prasidenten Herrn Fiirsten von Metternicb an die Deputierten 
der Israelitisehen Gemeinde der Stadt Frankfurt-am-Main als Antwort 
auf die von diesen an den Kongress eingereichte Bittschrift. Datiert Wien, 
9"" 1 Juni, 1815. 

5. Anmerkung des Herausgebers (Kliibers) zu vorstehenden Erlass an 
die Deputierten der Israelitisehen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt-am-Main. 

6. Note des Kaiserlich-Oesterreiohischen Herrn Bevollmachtigten und 
Kongress Prasidenten Fiirsten von Metternich, wodurch derselbe dem 
Bevollmachtigten der freien Stadt Frankfurt Herrn Syndicus Danz die von 
dem allerhochsten verbundeten Machten, neuerdings erfolgte Bestatigung 
der Selbstandigkeit und Freiheit der Stadt Frankfurt anzeigt. Datiert 
Wien, 9 tcn Juni, 1815 mit einer Beilage. 

7. Accessions Urkunde der freien Stadt Frankfurt. 

(See also documents relating to the abolition of the Feudal land- 
tenure System on the left bank of the Rhine, effected during the domi- 
nation of the French revolutionary Government, vol. vi., pp. 396-426. ) 

8. Erlass des Kaiserlich-Oesterreiohischen ersten Bevollmachtigten und 
Kongress Prasidenten Fiirsten von Metternich an den Bevollmachtigten 
Israelitisehen Gemeinden Deutschland Doktor und Advokaten Carl August 
Buchholz aus Liibeck betreffend die Verbesserung des Rechtzustandes der 
Juden, vol. 9, p. 334. 

The Article of the Final Act relating to the Jews is Article XVI 
of Annexe IX, " Acte sur la Constitution Federative de rAllemagne." 
It runs as follows :— 


XVI. — La difference dea Confessions Chretiennes dans les Pays et 
Territoires de la Confederation Allemande, n'en entrainera aueune dans 
la jouissanee des droits oivils et politiques. 

La Die e prendra en consideration les moyens d'operer de la maniere 
la plus uniforme, l'amelioration de l'etat civil de ceux qui professent la 
Religion Juive en Allemagne, et s'occupera particulierement des mesures, 
par lesquelles on pourra leur assurer et leur garantir dans les fitats de la 
Confederation, la jouissanee des Droits Civils, a condition qu'ils se souraettent 
a toutes les obligations des autres Citoyens. En attendant les Droits 
accordes deja aux Membres de cette Religion par tel ou tel £tat en par- 
ticulier, leur sont conserves. 

(British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 132-3.) 


At the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, the question was once more 
brought before the Great Powers. This time the initiative was taken 
by a well-known English conversionist, the Rev. Lewis Way, of 
Stanstead, Sussex. There was, however, no trace of conversionism 
in his efforts on this occasion, and there can be no question that 
the Jewish Community owe him a great debt of gratitude. He pro- 
ceeded to Aix some weeks before the Congress met, and presented 
to the Tsar Alexander a short scheme of Jewish emancipation. The 
Tsar encouraged him to amplify it, and this he did in two elaborate 
memoirs, one describing the situation of the Jews, and the other 
embodying a scheme under which they might be invested with civil 
rights. To this he added a short memorandum drawn up at his 
request by Dohm, the veteran champion of the Jews, who came to Aix 
for that special purpose. By command of the Tsar, these documents 
were presented to the Congress at its sitting on November 21, 1818, 
and were made the subject of a special Protocol, in which sympathy 
was expressed for " the praiseworthy object of his proposals." The 
plenipotentiaries further declared that the solution of the Jewish 
Question was a matter which should " equally occupy the statesman 
and the friend of humanity." lS It is interesting to note that in his 

18 Infra, p. 16. The Protocol does not appear in the Protocols of the Congress 
published in the British and Foreign Stale Papers, and is usually excluded from the 
official records of the Congress. Its text is, however, given in Way's Mimoirts 
(Paris, 1819) as an unpaginated Appendix. 


scheme Way declares himself to be a believer in Jewish Nationalism, 
and it is for this reason that he does not ask for more than civil rights 
for the Jews, as he regards their exile in Europe as an intermediate 
stage of their history. In this he was probably influenced by the 
prevalent anti-French atmosphere, inasmuch as the French Jews, 
in their compact with Napoleon, made by the Sanhedrin in 1806, 
had solemnly repudiated Jewish Nationalism, and had thus rendered 
themselves eligible for political, as well as civil, rights. 19 


For the texts of the documents referred to above see " Memoires 
sur l'etat des Israelites, dedies et presented a leur Majestes Imperiales 
et Royales, Reunies au Congres d'Aix-la-Chapelle " [by the Rev. 
Lewis Way, A.M.], Paris, 1819. 

The Protocol of the Congress at which these " Memoires " were 
considered runs as follows : — 


Seance du 21 Novembre, 1818. 
Entre les cinq Cabinets. 

Messieurs les SS. de Russie ont communique l'imprime ci-joint, relatif 
a une reforme dans la legislation civile et politique en ce qui conceme la 
nation juive. La conference, sans entrer absolument dans toutes les vues 
de l'auteur de cette piece, a rendu justice a la tendance generate et au but 
louable de ses propositions. MM. les SS. d'Autriche et de Prusse se sont 
declares prets a dormer, sur l'etat de la question dans les deux monarchies, 
tous les 6claircissements qui pourraient servir a la solution d'un probleme 
qui doit egalement occ uper rhomme d'6tat et 1'ami de l'humanit6. 

Signe : Metternich. 

19 Procis-Verbal des Seances de VAssembUe Juive (Paris, 1806), pp. 47-49; 
Actes du Grand Sanhedrin. pp. 65-73, 83, 90-91. 



The growing symptoms of an impending break-up of the Ottoman 
Empire visibly extended the practical applications of the doctrine 
of religious liberty in the field of international politics. In emanci- 
pating the Christian feudatories of the Porte, account had to be taken 
of the large Moslem and Jewish minorities inhabiting those States. 
It was impossible to emancipate the Christians and at the same time 
to place non-Christians under disabilities, especially where they had 
governments of their own faith to whom they might appeal and who 
might resort to reprisals. Hence, the parity of all religions in the 
Levant had to be recognised. 

The point first arose in the settlement of the Greek question in 
1830. In this question it was not only the Moslems who had to be 
considered. France renounced in favour of the new Kingdom her 
Protectorate over the Catholics, which she derived from her capitu- 
lations with Turkey. Hence, besides the Moslems, guarantees had 
to be exacted for the religious liberty of Catholics in Greece. These 
guarantees were the subject of the third Protocol of the Conference 
of London, February 3, 1830. At the same time it was stipulated 
that there should be perfect equality for the subjects of the new State, 
whatever might be their religion. Neither Moslems nor Jews were 
expressly mentioned, but it is in virtue of this Protocol that the 
Jews of Greece enjoy their present status as Greek Nationals. 
The Jews of Greece were thus the first Jews of the Levant to be fully 


Protocol No. 3 of the Conference held at the Foreign Office, London, 
on 3 February, 1830. 

Present : 
The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Prance and Russia. 

The Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg having been called, by the united 
suffrages of the three Courts of the Alliance, to the Sovreignty of Greece, 
the French Plenipotentiary requested the attention of the Conference to 
the particular situation in which his Government is placed, relative to a 
portion of the Greek population. 


He represented that for many ages France has been entitled to exercise, 
in favour of the Catholics subjected to the Sultan, an especial protection, 
which His Most Christian Majesty deems it to be his duty to deposit at the 
present moment in the hands of the future Sovereign of Greece, so far as 
the provinces which are to form the new State are concerned ; but in 
divesting himself of this prerogative, His Most Christian Majesty owes it to 
himself, and he owes it to a people who have lived so long under the pro- 
tection of his ancestors, to require that the Catholics of the continent and 
of the islands shall find in the organization which is about to be given to 
Greece, guarantees which may be substituted for the influence which France 
has hitherto exercised in their favour. 

The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Russia appreciated the 
justice of this demand ; and it was decided that the Catholic religion should 
enjoy in the new State the free and public exercise of its worship, that its 
property should be guaranteed to it, that its bishops should be maintained 
in the integrity of the functions, rights and privileges, which they have 
enjoyed under the protection of the Kings of France, and that, lastly, agree- 
ably to the same principle, the properties belonging to the antient French 
Missions, or French Establishments, shall be recognized and respected. 

The Plenipotentiaries of the three Allied Courts being desirous more- 
over of giving to Greece a new proof of the benevolent anxiety of their 
Sovereigns respecting it, and of preserving that, country from the calamities 
which the rivalry of the religiois therein professed might excite, agreed 
that all the subjects of the new State, whatever may be their religion, shall 
be admissable to all public employments, functions, and honours, and be 
treated on the footing of a perfect equality, without regard to difference 
of creed in all their relations, religious, civil or political. 

(Signed) Aberdeen 


(Holland : " The European Concert in the Eastern Question," pp. 32, 

(e) THE CONGRESS OF PARIS (1856-1858). 

The Jewish Question was more expressly discussed twenty-six 
years later, at the Congress of Paris, and the subsidiary conferences 
which had to settle the great political problems arising out of the 
Crimean War. Meanwhile, under the influence of Sir Moses Montefiore, 
and more especially of his jealousy of M. Cremieux, the Jewish Board 


of Deputies had plucked up a measure of courage, and had begun to 
take a more active interest in the larger political questions which 
involved the future of their foreign co-religionists. In the international 
discussions of the question of religious liberty which preceded the 
outbreak of war, the Powers only concerned themselves with the 
Christian communities. The French Jews at once took alarm, and 
the Central Consistory addressed the Emperor Napoleon III and 
applied to the Board of Deputies in London to make similar repre- 
sentations to the British Government. Both bodies had, however, 
been anticipated by the personal activity of the Rothschilds in Paris 
and London. Baron James, through his gifted friend and co-worker, 
Albert Cohn, had already entered into direct negotiations with the 
Turkish Government, and Baron Lionel and Sir Anthony de Roth- 
schild had interviewed Lord Clarendon, who, at their instance, 
had given instructions to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to take special 
note of the Jewish Question. Thus, when the letter of the French 
Consistory was read at the Meeting of the Board of Deputies on 
April 24, 1854, that body found that it had little to do Nevertheless, 
it addressed a formal letter to Lord Clarendon on May 10, and, five 
days later, received an assurance from him that it might rely on a 
favourable consideration of the situation of the Jews of Turkey at 
the hands of His Majesty's Government." 

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Paris of 1856, which more or less 
settled all the questions arising out of the war, does not mention the 
Jews in any of its articles. This is not to say that it did not fulfil 
Lord Clarendon's pledges. As a matter of fact, it deals with both 
the situation of the Jews in Turkey and with that of the Jews in the 
liberated Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Thus, Article IX, 
which takes note of the Turkish Hatti-Humayoun of February 18, 
1856, is intended to refer to the Jews as well as to all other non- 
Mussulmans. The history of this aspect of the Article is a little 
curious. Shortly after the outbreak of the war in 1854, Turkey 
prepared a draft treaty of peace containing an article providing for 
the religious liberty of Christian communities. Through the inter- 

80 Emanuel : op. cit., p. 66. The facts are given more fully by Loeb : 
Biographic d' Albert Cohn (Paris, 1878), pp; 48-49. 


position of Baron James de Rothschild of Paris, this article was 
reconsidered, and another was inserted granting equal rights to all 
Ottoman subjects, without distinction of creed. This was the germ 
of the famous Hatti-Humayoun. That the latter was intended to 
deal equally with Jews and Christians is shown by its Article II, in 
which the same privileges are expressly granted to the Turkish Grand 
Rabbis as to the ecclesiastical heads of the Christian confessions." 

The absence of any direct reference to the Jews, or even to equal 
rights for all religious communities in the Principalities, is less satis- 
factory. The omission is in the first place due to the circumstance 
that the Treaty in itself is incomplete. Articles XXIII, XXIV, and 
XXV refer the question of the constitutional reorganisation of the 
Principalities to a Commission which was to meet at Bucharest and 
consult Divans of the two Principalities with a view to making the 
necessary recommendations to the Powers. 28 This Commission did 
not report until 1858, when its proposals were considered by a fresh 
Conference of the Powers, which based upon them the scheme embodied 
in the Convention of Paris of August 19 of that year. The question 
of religious liberty is dealt with in Article XL VI of that instrument. 2 - 
Originally it was intended to assure complete emancipation and 
equality for all non-Christian communities in the Principalities, 
and articles to this effect were adopted by the preparatory Con- 
ference of Constantinople, in its Protocol of February 11, 1856> 
with the express design of relieving the Jews, whose sufferings had 
already become a matter of European notoriety. 24 The Rumanians, 
however, were already strongly hostile to Jewish emancipation, and 
the reigning Prince of Moldavia misled the Powers with specious 
promises of a type which has since become bitterly familiar to the 
Jews all over the world. 25 The Report of the Bucharest Commission 

21 Loeb : op. cit., p. 49 (supplemented by private sources), Holland : The 
European Concert in the Eastern Question, p. 330. 

" Holland : op. cit., pp. 233-234, 251. 

28 British and Foreign State Papers, xlviii. 78. 

21 Loeb : Situation des Israelites en Turquie, en Serbie, et en Roumanie (1877), 
p. 200. 

26 The Jews and the War, No. 1 (1917), pp. 15-16. (Privately printed by Jewish 
Conjoint Committee.) 


of 1858 accepted these promises and excluded all references to 
Religous Liberty from its scheme. 26 The first draft of the Con- 
vention submitted to the Conference of the Powers did likewise,* 7 
but ultimately a compromise amendment was introduced by which 
the Powers agreed (Art. XL VI) to limit political rights to Christians, 
while providing for the extension of these rights to non-Christians 
by subsequent legislative arrangements. 28 This concession to the 
Rumanians was made on the express pledge that the original scheme 
of the Conference at Constantinople would be gradually realised. 2 * 
Needless to say, the pledge was never fulfilled. In dealing, how- 
ever, with the question, the Convention of Paris had one merit. It 
lent no support to the subsequent theory of the Rumanians, that 
the Jews were foreigners in a secular sense in their own country, but, 
on the contrary, assumed that their status was as much that of 
Moldavians and Wallachians as was the status of the native Christians. 


Article IX op the Treaty of Paris. March 30, 1856. 

Art. IX. His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, having, in his constant 
solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman 30 which, while 
ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of race, re- 
cords his generous intentions towards the Christian populations of his Empire, 
and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in that respect, has 
resolved to communicate to the Contracting Parties the said Pirman emana- 
ting spontaneously from his sovereign will. 

The Contracting Powers recognise the high value of this communica- 
tion. It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said 
Powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relations 
of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the internal administra- 
tion of the Empire. 

(Holland : '• European Concert," &c," p. 246. 

Extracts from the Hatti-Humayottn of Feb. 18, 1856. 

I. Les garanties promises et accordees a tous nos sujets par le Hatti- 
cherif de Gulhane et par les lois du Tanzimat, sans distinction de culte, pour 

*• British and Foreign State Papers, xlviii. 97. " Ibid. p. 113. 

28 Ibid. p. 120. »» Jews and the War, No. 1 (1917), pp. 15-16. 
30 The Hatti-Humayoun (see next document). 


la security de leur personne et de leurs biens, et pour la conservation de lew 
honneur, sont rappelees et consacrees de nouveau ; il sera pris des mesures 
efficaces pour que ces garanties recoivent leur plein et entier effet. 

II. Sont reconnus et maintenus, en totalite, les immunites et privileges 
sj>irituels donnes et accordes par nos illustres ancetres, et a des dates pos- 
terieures, aux communautes chretiennes et autres, non musulmanes, etablies 
dans notre empire, sous notre egide protectrice. . . . Les patriarches, 
metropolitans (archeveques), delegues et eveques, ainsi que les grands- 
rabbins, preteront serment a leur entree en fonctions, d'apres une formule 
qui sera concerts entre notre Sublime-Porte et les chefs spirituels des 
differentes communautes. 

III. . . . L' administration des affaires temporelles des commun- 
autes chretiennes et autres, non musulmanes, sera placee sous le sauvegarde 
d'un conseil, dont les membres seront choisis parmi le clerge et les laiques 
de chaque communaute. 

VII. Le gouvernement prendra les mesures energiques et necessaires 
pour assurer a chaque culte, quel que soit le nombre de ses adherents, la 
pleine liberte de son exercice. 

VIII. Tout mot et toute expression ou appellation tendant a rendre 
une classe de mes sujets inferieure a l'autre, a raison du culte, de la langue 
ou de la race, sont a jamais abolis et effaces du protocole administratif. 

IX. La loi punira 1'emploi, entre particuliers, ou de la part des agents 
de l'autorite, de loute expression ou qualification injurieuse ou blessant. 

X. Le culte de toutes les croyances et religions existant dans mes Stats, 
y etant pratique en toute liberte, aucun de mes sujets ne sera empeche 
d'exercer la religion qu'il professe. 

XL Personne ne sera ni vexe, ni inquiete a cet egard. 

XII. Personne ne sera contraint a changer de culte ou de religion. 

XIII. Les agents et employes de 1'lStat sont choisis par nous ; ils 
sont nommes par decret imperial ; et comme tous nos sujets, sans distinction 
de nationality, seront admissibles aux cmplois et services publics, ils seront 
aptes a les occuper, selon leur capacite, et conformement a des regies dont 
l'application sera generate. 

XIV. Tous nos sujets, sans difference ni distinctions, seront recus dans les 
ecoles civiles et militaires du gouverncment,pourvu qu'ils remplissent les condi- 
tions d'age et d'examen specifies dans les reglements organiques desdites ecoles. 

XV. De plus, chaque communaute est autoris6e a etablir des ecoles 
publiques pour les sciences, les arts et l'industrie ; seulement le mode d'en- 
seignement et le choix des professeurs de ces sortes d'ecoles seront places 
sous l'inspection et le controle d'un conseil mixte d'instruction publique, 
dont les membres seront nommes par nous. 

(Holland : op. cit., pp. 330-332.) 


Conferences of Constantinople (1856). — Protocol of Feb. 11. 

XIII. Tous les cultes et ceux qui les professent jouiront d'une egale 
liberty et d'une egale protection dans les deux principautes. 

XV. Les etrangers pourront posseder des biens fonds en Moldavie et 
en Valachie, en acquittant les memes charges que les indigenes, et en se 
soumettant aux lois. 

XVI. Tous les Moldaves et tous les Valaques seront, sans exception, 
admissibles aux emplois publics. 

XVIII. Toutes les classes de la population, sans aucune distinction 
de naissance ni de culte, jouiront de l'egalite des droits civils, et particuliere- 
ment du droit de propriety, dans toutes les formes ; mais l'exercice des 
droits politiques sera suspendu pour les indigenes places sous une protection 

(Ubicini, " La Question des Principautes," p. 13.) 

Art. XLVI of the Convention of Paris of August 10, 1858. 

XL VI. Les Moldaves et les Valaques seront tous egaux devant la loi, 
devant l'impot, et egalement admissibles aux emplois publics dans Tune 
et l'autre Principaute. 

Leur Iiberte individuelle sera garantie. Personne ne pourra etre retenu , 
arrete, ni poursuivi que conformement a la loi. 

Personne ne pourra etre exproprie que legalement, pour cause d'interSt 
public, et moyennant indemnity. 

Les Moldaves et les Valaques de tous les rits Chretiens jouiront egale- 
ment des droits politiques. La jouissance de ces droits pourra etre etendue 
aux autres cultes par les dispositions legislatives. 31 

Tous les privileges, exemptions, ou monopoles, dont jouissent encore 
certaines classes, seront abolis ; et il sera procede sans retard a la revision 
de la loi qui regie les rapports des proprietaires du sol avec les cultivateurs, 
eu vue d'ameliorer 1'etat des paysans. 

("Brit, and For. State Papers," vol. xlviii. pp. 77-78.) 


Not only were the promises of the Prince of Moldavia not 
realised, but, during the next twenty years, the Jews of the 
Principalities were more cruelly persecuted than ever. The perse- 

31 This alinia did not appear in the scheme drawn up by the Bucharest Com- 
mission, but was inserted by the Conference. 


cution extended beyond the frontiers to Servia, and it soon became 
the leading preoccupation of the Jews throughout the world. Owing 
to their protests, the Powers frequently intervened. 32 Rumania 
then took the impudent course of resenting this interference in her 
internal affairs, on the ground that, by international comity, they 
were no concern of foreign States. In 1867, this provoked a notable 
retort from Great Britain. In a despatch sent to Bucharest in that 
year, the following sentence appears : " The peculiar position of 
the Jews places them under the protection of the civilised world." 33 
When the Congress of Berlin met in 1878, to reconsider the 
Eastern Question, the situation of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and 
more particularly in the Balkans, took its place in the front rank 
of the preoccupations of the Powers. Several long protocols are 
entirely devoted to it. 34 The result was that the Treaty of Berlin 
dealt comprehensively with the whole question of religious liberty, 
and stipulated separately for such liberty in all the States of the 
Levant. The Treaty is thus, as the Jewish Conjoint Committee 
described it, in their important Memorandum of November 1908, 
" above all a great charter of Emancipation, especially of civil and 
religious equality." 35 This principle is embodied in no fewer than 
five of its articles, relating to every political division of the vast 
region with which it deals, and in each case it is asserted as the funda- 
mental basis of the liberties conferred on the various States. 36 In 
a word, it made it a principle of European policy that no new 
State or transfer of territory should be recognised unless the fullest 
religious liberty and civil and political equality were guaranteed to the 
inhabitants. Thus it marks the triumph of the principle first tenta- 
tively hid down for Holland and Belgium in Article II of the Protocol 
of June 1814. Though applied to Greece in the Protocol of February 
1830, it had had to wait nearly fifty years for universal acceptance. 

All the States concerned frankly and honestly accepted this 
principle, and put it into operation, except Rumania. By a repetition 

a * Loeb : Situation, pp. 139-196. Narcisse Leven : Cinquante ans d'histoire, 
pp. 93-146. 

• 3 British and Foreign State Papers, lxii. p. 705. 31 Infra, pp. 25-33 

36 Jews and the War, p. 29. s « Infra, p. 33. 


of the specious promises of 1858, she again obtained permission to 
emancipate her Jews gradually, it being understood that the process 
would be hastened, and that full emancipation would be accomplished 
within a reasonable time. Unfortunately the phrasing of the articles 
embodying the principle left a technical loophole of which Rumania 
very dexterously availed herself, inasmuch as it did not make provision 
against the application, under Rumanian law, of the jus sanguinis 
to the Jews who qua Jews were held to be aliens. The point was not 
ignored by the Congress, but no attempt was made to satisfy it as 
the intentions of the Congress were clear enough and reliance was 
placed on the good faith of Rumania. 37 The result is that for forty 
years Rumania has evaded both the will of the Congress and her 
own promises ; and to-day the Jews of that country, with the 
exception of a handful who have been emancipated by individual 
Acts of Parliament, are the only Jews in Europe who are denied equal 
rights with their fellow-citizens. 


Extracts from Protocols of the Congress of Berlin. 
Protocole No. 5. — Seance du 24 Juin, 1878. 

M. Waddington donne lecture de deux Articles Additionnels proposes 
par ies Plenipotentiaires de France, et dont voici le texte : — 

" Art. I. Tous les sujets Bulgares, quelle que soit leur religion, jouiront 
d'une complete egalite de droits. lis pourront concourir a tous les emplois 
publics, fonctions et honneurs, et la difference de croyance ne pourra leur 
etre opposee comme un motif d' exclusion. 

" L'exercice et la pratique exterieure de tous les cultes seront entierement 
libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra etre apportee soit a l'organisation hier- 
arcblque des differentes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec leurs chefs 

" II. Une pleine et entiere liberte est assuree aux religieux et eveques 
Catholiques etrangers pour l'exercice de leur culte en Bulgarie et dans la 
Roumelie Orientale. lis seront maintenus dans l'exercice de leurs droits 
et privileges, et leurs proprietes seront respectees." 

Le President dit que ces deux propositions seront imprimees, dis- 
tribu6e8, et placees a un ordre du jour ult£rieur. 

»' Infra, p. 32. Extract from Protocol No. 17. 


Apres un echange d'observations entre le Comte Schouvalofi et M. 
Waddington sur la portee des deux propositions de M. le Premier Pleni- 
potentiaire de France, il demeure entendu que la premiere s'applique a la 
Bulgarie, et l'autre a la Bulgarie et a la Roumelie Orientale ensemble. 

(" Brit, and For. State Papers," vol. Ixix., p. 917.) 

Protocole No. 6 — Seance du 25 Juin, 1878. 

L'ordre du jour appelle ensuite les deux propositions Francaises inserees 
dans le Protocole 5, et relatives a la liberte des cultes. 

Sur la premiere, M. Desprez demande la substitution des mots " habitants 
de la Principaute de Bulgarie " a ceux de " sujets Bulgares " ; cette modifica- 
tion est admise, et la proposition acceptee a 1'unanimite. Sur la seconde pro- 
position particulierement relative aux eveques et religieux Catholiques, le 
Comte Schouvalofi propose de substituer a ces mots, " les ecclesiastiques 
et religieux etrangers." 

Lord Sahsbury desirerait que la meme legislation fut, sous ce rapport, 
etablie pour la Roumelie, et pour les autres provinces de la Turquie. 

Caratheodory Pacha declare qu'en efiet une proposition concernant le 
libre exercice du oulte dans la province de Roumelie Orientale parait tout-a- 
fait superflue, cette province devant etre soumise a l'autorite du Sultan, et, 
par consequent, aux principes et aux lois communs a toutes les parties de 
l'Empire, et qui etablissent la tolerance pour tous les cultes egalement. 

M. Waddington, prenant acte de ces paroles, annonce l'intention d'in- 
troduire quelques ohangements duns la redaction de sa proposition, et 
demande l'ajournement de la discussion a demain. 

(Ibid., p. 935.) 

Protocole No. 7 — Seance du 26 Juin, 1878. 

Le President soumet au Congres F Article Additionnel presente par les 
Plenipotentiaires Francais dans une seance precedente, et relatif aux rehgieux 
Catholiques etrangers en Bulgarie et en Roumelie Orientale. 

Lord Sahsbury regrette que les Plenipotentiaires de France ne donnent 
pas suite a leur proposition en etendant sa portee a toute la Turquie d'Europe. 
Son Excellence y aurait vu un important progres realise. 

M. Waddington repond que le progres dont parle Lord Sahsbury a ete 
obtenu par Facceptation dans la seance d'hier, de la premiere proposition 
Francaise qui consacre l'entiere liberte des cultes. 

Lord Salisbury ayant fait remarquer que cette proposition ne concernait 
que la Bulgarie, le President dit que, pour sa part, il s'associe au desir que la 
liberte des cultes soit reclamee pour toute la Turquie, tant en Europe qu'en 


Asie, mais il se demande si Ton obtiendrait sur ce point l'assentiment des 
Plenipotentiaires Ottomans. 

Caratheodory Pacha declare, qu'en rdpondant hier a M. Waddington, il 
s'en est simplement rapporte a la legislation generate de l'Empire Ottoman 
ainsi qu'aux Traites et Conventions. Son Excellence ajoute que la tolerance 
dont jouissent tous les cultes en Turquie ne fait aucun doute, et qu'en 
l'absence d'une proposition plus etendue sur laquelle il aurait alors a 
s'expliquer, il se croit en droit de considerer comme superflue une mention 
speciale pour la Roumelie Orientate. 

Le President constate que l'unanimite du Congres s'associe au desir de 
la France de prendre acte des declarations donnees par la Turquie en faveur 
de la liberte religieuse. Tel etait le but des Plenipotentiaires Francais, et il 
a ete atteint. Lord Salisbury desirerait alter au dela, et faire etendre la pro- 
position primitive non seulement a la Bulgarie et la Roumelie, mais a tout 
l'Empire Ottoman. En ce qui concerne l'Allemagne, le Prince de Bismarck, 
qui a donne son adhesion a la proposition Francaise, aurait aussi volontiers 
admis celle de Lord Salisbury, mais la discussion d'une question aussi 
complexe detournerait le Congres de l'objet de sa seance presente. Son 
Altesse Serenissime demande toutefois a Lord Salisbury s'il entend presenter 
a cet egard une motion speciale. 

M. le Second Plenipotentiaire de la Grande Bretagne se reserve de revenir 
sur ce point a propos de 1' Article XXII du Traite de San Stefano. 

Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que le desir de Lord Salisbury de voir 
etendre la liberte religieuse autant que possible en Europe et en Asie lui 
semble tres Justine. Son Altesse desirerait qu'il fut fait mention au Protocole 
de son adhesion au vceu de M. le Ptenipotentiaire d'Angleterre, et fait observer 
que le Congres ayant cherche a effacer les frontieres ethnographiques, et a 
les remplacer par de frontieres commerriales et strategiques, les Plenipoten- 
tiaires de Russie souhaitent d'autant plus que ces frontieres ne deviennent 
point des barrieres religieuses. 

Le President resume la discussion en disant qu'il sera inscrit au Protocole 
que l'unanimite du Congres s'est ralliee a la proposition Francaise, et que 
la plupart des Plenipotentiaires ont forme des voeux pour l'extension de la 
liberte des cultes. Ce point sera compris d'ailleurs dans la discussion de 
l'Article XXII du Traite de San Stefano. 

(Ibid., pp. 942-943.) 

Protocole No. 8. — Seance du 28 Juin, 1878. 

Lord Salisbury reconnait l'independ^nce de la Serbie, mais pense qu'il 
serait opportun de stipuler dans la Principaute le grand principe de la liberte 


M. Waddington admet egalement l'ind6pendance de la Serbie, mais 
sous le benefice de la proposition suivante identique a celle que Ie Congres 
a acceptee pour la Bulgarie : — 

" Les habitants de la Principaute de Serbie, quelle que soit leur religion, 
jouiront d'une complete egalite de droits. Us pourront concourir a tous 
les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et exercer toutes les professions, 
et la difference de croyance ne pourra leur etre opposee comme un motif 

" L'exercice et la pratique exterieure de tous les cultes seront entiere- 
ment libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra etre apportee soit a l'organisation 
hierarchique des differentes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec leurs 
chefs spirituels." 

Le Prince Gortchacow craint que cette redaction no s'applique surtout 
aux Israelites, et sans se montrer contraire aux principes generaux qui y 
sont enonces, son Altesse Serenissime ne voudrait pas que la question 
Israelite, qui viendra plus tard, fut prejugee par une declaration prealable. 
S'il ne s'agit que de la liberte religieuse, le Prince Gortchacow declare qu'elle 
a toujours ete» appliquee en Russie ; il donne pour sa part a ce principe 
l'adhesion la plus complete et serait pret a l'etendre dans le sens le plus 
large. Mais s'il s'agit de droits civils et politiques, son Altesse Serenissime 
demande a ne pas confondre les Israelites de Berlin, Paris, Londres, ou 
Vienne, auxquels on ne saurait assur6ment refuser aucun droit politique 
et civil, avec les Juifs de la Serbie, de la Roumanie, et de quelques provinces 
Russes, qui sont, a son avis, un veritable fleau pour les populations indigenes. 
Le President ayant fait remarquer qu'il conviendrait peut-etre d'at- 
tribuer a la restriction des droits civils et politiques ce regrettable etat 
des Isra61ites, le Prince Gortchacow rappelle qu'en Russie, le Gouvernement, 
dans certaines provinces, a du, sous 1'impulsion d'une necessity absolue 
et justifie par 1'experience, soumettre les Israelites a un regime exceptionnel 
pour sauvegarder les interets des populations. 

M. Waddington croit qu'il est important de saisir cette occasion solen- 
nelle pour faire affirmer les principes de la liberte religieuse par les Repre- 
sentants de 1'Europe. Son Excellence ajoute que la Serbie, qui demande 
a entrer dans la famille Europeenne sur le meme pied que les autres Etats, 
doit au prealable reconnaitre les principes qui sont la base de l'organisation 
sociale dans tous les fitats de 1'Europe, et les accepter comme une condition 
necessaire de la faveur qu'elle sollicite. 

Le Prince Gortchacow persisto a penser que les droits civils et politiques 
ne sauraient etre attribues aux Juifs d'une maniere absolue en Serbie. 

Le Comte Schouvaloff fait remarquer que ces observations ne constituent 
pas une opposition de principe a la proposition Francaise : 1'element 
Israelite, trop considerable dans certaines provinces Russes, a du y etre 


l'objet d'une reglementation speciale, mais son Excellence espere que, dans 
l'avenir, on pourra prevenir les inconvenients incontestables signales par 
le Prince Gortchacow sans toucher a la liberty religieuse dont la Russie 
desire le developpement. 

Le Prince de Bismarck adhere a la proposition Francaise, en declarant que 
l'assentiment de l'Allemagne est toujours acquis a toute motion favorable 
a la liberte religieuse. 

Le Comte de Launay dit qu'au nom de 1'Italie il s'empresse d'adherer 
au principe de la liberte religieuse, qui forme une des bases essentielles des 
institutions de son pays, et qu'il s'associe aux declarations faites a ce sujet 
par l'Allemagne, la France, et la Grande Bretagne. 

Le Comte Andrassy s'exprime dans le meme sens, et les Plenipotentiaires 
Ottomans n'elevent aucune objection. 

Le Prince de Bismarck, apres avoir constate les resultats du vote, declare 
que le Congres admet l'independance de la Serbie, mais sous la condition que 
la liberte religieuse sera reconnue dans la Principaut£. Son Altesse Serenis- 
sime ajoute que la Commission de Redaction, en formulant cette decision, 
devra constater la connexite etablie par le Congres entre la proclamation de 
I'independence Serbe et la reconnaissance de la liberte religieuse. 

(Ibid. pp. 959-961.) 

Protocole No. 10— Seance du V Juillet, 1878. 

M. Waddington declare que, fideles aux principes qui les ont inspires 
jusqu'ici, les Plenipotentiaires de France demandent que le Congres pose a 
l'independance Roumaine les memes conditions qu'a l'independance Serbe. 
Son Excellence ne se dissimule pas les difficultes locales qui existent en Rou- 
manie, mais, apres avoir murement examine les arguments qu'on peut faire 
valoir dans un sens et dans 1'autre, les Plenipotentiaires de France ont juge 
preferable de ne point se departir de la grande regie de l'6galite des droits 
et de la liberte des cultes. II est difficile, d'ailleurs, que le Gouvernement 
Roumain repousse, sur son territoire, le principe admis en Turquie pour ses 
propres sujets. Son Excellence pense qu'il n'y a pas a hesiter que la Rou- 
manie, demandant a entrer dans la grande famille Europeenne, doit accepter 
les charges et meme les ennuis de la situation dont elle reclame le benefice, 
et que Ton ne trouvera, de longtemps, une occasion aussi solennelle et decisive 
d'affirmir de nouveau les principes qui font l'honneur et la securite des nations 
civilisees. Quant aux difficultes locales, M. le Premier Plenipotentiaire de 
France estime qu'elles seront plus aisement surmontees lorsque ces principes 
auront ete reconnus en Roumanie et que la race Juive saura qu'elle n'a rien a 
attendre que de ses propres efforts et de la solidarity de ses interets avec ceux 
des populations indigenes. M. Waddington termine en insistant pour que 


les memes conditions d'ordre politique et religieux indiquees pour la Serbie 
soient egalement imposees a l'Etat Roumain. 

Le Prince de Bismarck faisant allusion aux principes du droit public en 
vigueur d'apres la Constitution de 1'Empire Allemand, et a l'interet que 
1' opinion publique attache a ce que les memes principes suivis dans la politique 
interieure soient appliques a la politique etrangere, declare s'associer, au nom 
de l'Allemagne, a la proposition Francaise. 

Le Comte Andrassy adhere a la proposition Francaise. 

Lord Beaconsfield dit qu'il donne une complete adhesion, au nom du 
Gouvernement Anglais, a la proposition Francaise. Son Excellence ne saurait 
supposer un instant que le Congres reconnaitrait l'independance de la Rou- 
manie en dehors de cette condition. 

Les Plenipotentiaires Italiens font la meme declaration. 

Le Prince Ciortchacow, se referant aux expressions par Iesquelles a ete 
motivee la proposition Francaise et qui donnent la plus grande extension a la 
liberte religieuse, se rallie entierement a cette proposition. 

Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que l'adhesion de la Russie a l'independance 
est cependant subordonnee a l'acceptation par la Roumanie de la retrocession 
reclamee par le Gouvernement Russe. 

Les Plenipotentiaires Ottomans n'elevent aucune objection contre les 
principes presentes par les Plenipotentiaires Francais, et le President constate 
que le Congres est unanime a n'accorder l'independance a la Roumanie qu'aux 
memes conditions posees a la Serbie. 

Le Baron de Haymerle lit une motion relative a la liberte des cultes dans 
le Montenegro : — 

" Tous les habitants du Montenegro jouiront d'une pleine et entiere 
liberte de l'exercice et de la pratique exterieure de leurs cultes, et aucune 
entrave ne pourra etre apportee soit a 1'organisation hierarchique des differ- 
entes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels." 

Le Congres decide le renvoi a la Commission de Redaction. 

(75*7/., pp. 982-983, 989, 990.) 

Protocole No. 12 — Seance du 4 Juillet, 1878. 

Le President fait mention des petitions de la liste No. 9, et notamment de 
la communication adressee au Congres par M. Ristitch, faisant savoir au 
Congres que le Prince Milan l'a autorise a declarer que le Gouvernement Serbe 
saisira la premiere occasion, apres la conclusion de la paix, pour abolir par la 
voie legale la derniere restriction qui existe encore en Serbie relativement a 
la position des Israelites. Son Altesse Serenissime, sans vouloir entrer dans 
l'examen de la question, fait remarquer que les mots " la voie legale " semblent 
une reserve qu'il signale a l'attention de la haute assemblee. Le Prince de 


Bismarck croit devoir constater qu'en aucun cas cette reserve ne saurait 
infirmer l'autorite des decisions du Congres. 

Le Congres passe a l'Article XXII du Traite de San Stefano relatif 
aux ecclesiastiques Russes et aux moines de Mont Athos. 

Le Marquis de Salisbury rappelle qu'avant la seance il a fait distribuer 
a sea collegues une proposition tendant a substituer a l'Article XXII les 
dispositions suivantes : — 

" Tous les habitants de l'Empire Ottoman en Europe, quelle que soit 
leur religion, jouiront d'une complete egalite de droits. lis pourront con- 
courir a tous les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et seront egale- 
ment admis en temoignage devant les Tribunaux. 

" L'exercice et la pratique exterieure de tous les cultes seront entiere- 
ment libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra etre apportee, soit a l'organisa- 
tion hierarchique des differentes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec 
leurs chefs spirituels. 

" Les ecclesiastiques, les pelerins, et les moines de toutes les nation- 
alites, voyageant ou sejournant dans la Turquie d'Europe et d'Asie, jouiront 
d'une entiere egalite de droits, avantages et privileges. 

" Le droit de protection officielle est reconnu aux Representants Diplo- 
matiques et aux Agents Consulaires des Puissances en Turquie, tant a 
l'egard des personnes sus-indiquees que de leurs possessions, etablissements 
religieux, de bienfaisance, et autres dans les Lieux Saints et ailleurs. 

" Les moines du Mont Athos seront maintenus dans leurs possessions 
et avantages anterieurs, et jouiront, sans aucune exception, d'une entiere 
egalite de droits et prerogatives." 

Lord Salisbury explique que les deux premiers alineas de cette pro- 
position representent l'application a l'Empire Ottoman des principes 
adoptes par le Congres, sur la demande de la Prance, en ce qui concerne 
la Serbie et la Roumanie ; les trois derniers alineas ont pour but d'etendre 
aux ecclesiastiques de toutes les nationalites le benefice des stipulations 
de l'Article XXII speciales aux ecclesiastiques Russes. 

Le President fait egalement remarquer que la portee de la proposition 
Anglaise est la substitution de la Chretiente tout entiere a une seule nation - 
alite, et commence la lecture du document par alineas. 

Sur le premier alinea, Caratheodory Pacha dit que, sans doute, les 
principes de la proposition sont acceptes par la Turquie, mais son Ex- 
cellence ne voudrait pas qu'ils fussent consideres comme une innovation, 
et donne lecture, a ce sujet, de la communication suivante qu'il vient de 
recevoir de son Gouvernement : — 

" En presence des declarations faites au sein du Congres dans differentes 
circonstances en faveur de la tolerance religieuse, vous etes autorise a de- 
clarer, de votre cote, que le sentiment de la Sublime Porte a cet egard 


s'accorde parfaitement aveo le but poursuivi par l'Europe. Ses plus con- 
stantes traditions, sa politique seculaire, 1'instinot de ses populations, tout 
l'y pousse. Dans tout l'Empire les religions les plus differentes sont pro- 
fessees par des millions de sujets du Sultan, et personne n'a ete gene dans 
sa croyance et dans l'exercice de son culte. Le Gouvernement Imperial 
est decide a maintenir dans toute sa force ce principe, et a lui donner toute 
1 'extension qu'il comporte." 

Le Premier Plenipotentiaire de Turquie desirerait, en consequence, que, 
si le Congres se rallie a la proposition Anglaise, il fut, du moins, constate dans 
le texte que les principes dont il s'agit sont conformes a ceux qui dirigent 
son Gouvernement. Son Excellence ajoute que, contrairement a ce qui 
se passait en Serbie et en Roumanie, il n'existe dans la legislation de l'Empire 
aucune inegalite ou incapacity fondees sur des motifs religieux, et demande 
l'addition de quelques mots indiquant que cette regie a toujours ete appliquee 
dans l'Empire Ottoman non seulement en Europe, mais en Asie. Le Con- 
gres pourrait, par exemple, ajouter " conformement aux declarations de 
la Porte et aux dispositions anterieures, qu'elle afflrme vouloir maintenir." 

Lord Salisbury n'a pas d'objections centre la demande de Caratheodory 
Pacha, tout en faisant observer que ces dispositions se rencontrent, en effet, 
dans les declarations de la Porte, mais n'ont pas toujours ete observees dans 
la pratique. Au surplus, son Excellence ne s'oppose point a ce que le Comite 
do Redaction soit invite a inserer l'addition reclamee par les Plenipotentiaires 

{Ibid., pp. 1002-3, 1009-10.) 

Protocole No. 17.— Seance du 10 Juillet 1878. 

Le President invite le Rapporteur de la Commission de Redaction 
a lire le travail preparatoire du Traite. 

M. Desprez fait connaitre a la haute assemblee que le texte du pre- 
ambule n'est pas encore arrete, mai lui sera soumis dans la prochaine seance. 
Article V, qui a pour objet 1'egalite des droits et la liberte des cultes, a donne 
lieu a des difficultes de redaction ; cet Article, en effet, est commun a la 
Bulgarie, au Montenegro, a la Serbie, a la Roumanie, et la Commission devait 
trouver une meme formule pour diverses situations ; il etait particuliere- 
ment malaise d'y comprendre les Israelites de Roumanie, dont la situation 
est indeterminee au point de vue de la nationalite. Le Comte de Launay, 
dans le but de prevenir tout malentendu, a propose, au cours de la discussion, 
l'insertion de la phrase suivante : " Les Israelites de Roumanie, pour 
autant qu'ils n'appartiennent pas a une nationalite etrangere, acquierent, 
de plein droit, la nationalite Roumaine." 

Le Prince de Bismarck signale les inconvenients qu'il y aurait a modifier 
les resolutions adoptees par le Congres et qui ont forme la base des travaux 


de la Commission de Redaction. II est necessaire que le Congres s'oppose 
a toute tentative de revenir sur le fond. 

M. Desprez ajoute que la Commission a maintenu sa redaction primitive, 
qui lui parait de nature a concilier tous les interets en cause, et que M. de 
Launay s'est borne a demander l'insertion de sa motion au Protocole. 

Le Prince Gortschacow rappelle les observations qu'il a presente, dans 
une precedente seance, a propos des droits politiques et civils des Israelites 
en Roumanie. Son Altesse Serenissime ne veut pas renouveler ses objections , 
mais tient a declarer de nouveau qu'il ne partage pas, sur ce point, 1'opinion 
enoneee dans le Traite. 

(Ibid., pp. 1058-1059.) 

Extracts from the Treaty op Berlin, signed July 13, 1878. 

XLIV. En Roumanie la distinction des croyances religieuses et des 
confessions ne pourra etre opposee a personne comme un motif d 'exclusion 
ou d'incapacite en ce qui concerne la jouissance des droits civils et politiques, 
l'admission aux emplois publics, fonctions, et honneurs, ou l'exercice des 
differentes professions et industries dans quelque localite que ce soit. 

La liberie et la pratique exterieure de tous les cultes seront assurees 
a tous les ressortissants de l'Etat Roumain aussi bien qu'aux etrangers, 
et aucune entrave ne sera apportee, soit a l'organisation hierarchique des 
differentes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels. 

Les nationaux de toutes les Puissances, commercants ou autres, seront 
traites en Roumanie, sans distinction de religion, sur le pied d'une parfaite 

[Articles V, XXVII, and XXXV, relating respectively to 
Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Servia, are in the same form with the 
exception of the last alinea, which only appears in the above quoted 

LXII. La Sublime Porte ayant exprime la volont6 de maintenir le 
principe de la liberte religieuse en y dormant l'extension la plus large, les 
Parties Contractantes prennent acte de cette declaration spontanee. 

Dans aucune partie de l'Empire Ottoman la difference de religion ne 
pourra etre opposee a personne comme un motif d'exclusion ou d'incapacite 
en ce qui concerne l'usage des droits civils et politiques, l'admission aux 
emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, ou l'exercice des differentes professions 
et industries. 

Tous seront admis sans distinction de religion a temoigner devant 
les tribunaux. 

La liberty et la pratique exterieure de tous les cultes sont assures a 


tous, et aucune entrave ne pourra etre apportee, soit a 1'organisation 
hierarchique des differentes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec leurs 
chefs spirituels. 

Les ecclesiastiques, les pelerins, et les moines de toutes les nationalites 
voyageant dans la Turquie d'Europe ou la Turquie d'Asie jouiront des 
memes droits, avantages et privileges. 

(Ibid., pp. 764, 766-767.) 

Revision of the Rumanian Constitution (1879). 
No. 115. Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury. (Rec. November 4.) 

Bucharest, October 25, 1879. 

My Lord, — I have the honour to forward to your Lordship an authorized 
French translation of the Constitutional amendment concerning naturaliza- 
tion and religious equality as promulgated by a Decree this morning. 

I have, &c, 

W. A. White. 

The Marquis of Salisbury. 


Article Unique. — A la place de V Article 7 de la Constitution soumis a la 
revision, on metlra le suivant :■ — 

Article 7. La distinction de croyances religieuses et de confessions ne 
constituera point en Roumanie un obstacle a l'acquisition des droits civils et 
politiques et a leur exercice. 

§ 1. L'etranger pourra, sans distinction de religion, et qu'il soit soumis 
ou non a une protection etrangere, obtenir la naturalisation sous les conditions 
suivantes : 

(a) II addressera au Gouvernement sa petition de naturalisation, par 
laquelle il fera connaitre le capital qu'il possede, la profession ou l'industrie 
qu'il exerce, et la volonte d'etablir en Roumanie son domicile. 

(6) A la suite de cette demande il habitera le pays pendant dix annees, et 
il prouvera, par ses actions, qu'il est utile au pays. 

§ 2. Pourront etre dispenses du stage : , 

(a) Ceux qui auront introduit dans le pays des industries, des inventions 
utiles, ou qui possederont des talents distingues, ceux qui auront fonde de 
grands etablissements de commerce ou d'industrie. 


(b) Ceux qui, nes et Aleves dans le pays, de parents y etablis, n'auront 
jamais joui, ni les uns ni les autres, d'une protection etrangere. 

(c) Ceux qui auront servi sous les drapeaux pendant la Guerre de l'lnde- 
pendance, lesquels pourront etre naturalises d'une maniere collective, sur la 
proposition du Gouvemement, par une seule Loi et sans autre formalite. 

3. La naturalisation ne peut etre accordee que par la Loi, et individuelle- 

4. Une Loi speciale determiner i le mode d'apres lequel les etrangers 
pourront etablir leur domicile en Roumanie. 

5. Les Roumains ou ceux qui seront naturalises Roumains pourront 
acquerir des immeubles ruraux en Roumanie. Les droits deja acquis seront 
respectes. Les Conventions Internationales actuellement existantes restent 
en vigueur, avec toutes leurs clauses et jusqu'a l'expiration de leur duree. 

(Ibid., Ixxi. 1176-77.) 

The Compact with Rumania (1880). 

English Text of Identic Note presented to the Roumanian Government, 
February 20, 1880. 

The Undersigned, British. Representative at Bucharest, has the honour, 
by order of his Government, to convey to M. Boeresco, the Minister for Foreign 
Affairs of Roumania, the following communication : — 

Her Britannic Majesty's Government have been informed, through the 
Agent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Roumania at Paris, of the promul- 
gation, on the 25th October, 1879, of a Law, voted by the " Chambres de 
Revision " of the Principality, for the purpose of bringing the text of the 
Roumanian Constitution into conformity with the stipulations inserted in 
Article XLIV of the Treaty of Berlin. 

Her Majesty's Government cannot consider the new Constitutional 
provisions which have been brought to their cognizance — and particularly 
those by which persons belonging to a non-Christian creed domiciled in 
Roumania, and not belonging to any foreign nationality, are required to 
submit to the formalities of individual naturalization — as being a complete 
fulfilment of the views of the Powers signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. 

Trusting, however, to the determination of the Prince's Government to 
approximate more and more, in the execution of these provisions, to the liberal 
intentions entertained by the Powers, and taking note of the positive assur- 
ances to that effect which have been conveyed to them, the Government of 
Her Britannic Majesty, being desirous of giving to the Roumanian nation a 
proof of their friendly sentiments, have decided to recognize the Principality 
of Roumania as an independent State. Her Majesty's Government conse- 


quently declare themselves ready to enter into regular diplomatic relations 
with the Prince's Government. 

In bringing the decision come to by his Government to the knowledge of 
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Undersigned, &c. 

W. A. White. 
Bucharest, February 20, 1880. 

(Ibid., p. 1187.) 


It must be confessed — and, indeed, it has been avowed by pro- 
minent Rumanians themselves as — that Rumania's evasion of the Treaty 
of Berlin has been a monument of resourceful duplicity and bad faith. 
Accomplished by pretending to regard the native Jews as foreigners, 
it actually placed them in a far worse position than they had held 
in 1858, when at any rate their national character as Moldavians 
or Wallachians was not contested. But, not only have they been 
refused emancipation and stamped as foreigners, but, in their character 
of foreigners, without a State to protect them, they have been made 
the victims of special and cruel disabilities, which in practice do 
not and cannot affect other foreigners. 

One peculiarly barbarous act of persecution of this kind which 
was attempted in 1902 nearly brought about a serious intervention 
by the Great Powers' to compel Rumania to observe her Treaty obliga- 
tions. An Act was passed by the Rumanian Parliament forbidding 
foreigners to exercise any handicraft in Rumania unless Ruma- 
nians were assured similar privileges in the parent States of such 
foreigners. The result of this Act would have been to deprive all the 
Jewish artizans in Rumania of the means of earning their livelihood, 
as, being foreigners without a parent State of their own, they could 
not prove the reciprocity required by the law. Prompt steps were 
taken to bring this project to the notice of the Great Powers, chiefly 
by the late Lord Rothschild in London and Mr. Jacob Schiff in Wash- 
ington. Lord Rothschild was the first to move. In June 1901 he 

ae " Le Traite de Berlin," writes M. Suliotis in the Journal du droit international 
privi (xiv. 563), " a cru faire merveille en faveur des etrangers, mais la Koumanie 
a su habilement eluder les inconvenients qui pouvaient resulter de l'applieation de 
Particle VII. dans le sens du Traite de Berlin, qui n'a eu d'autres resultats que de 
rendre plus difficile la situation des etrangers." 


forwarded to His Majesty's Government an elaborate Memorandum 
setting forth the intolerable situation of the Eumanian Jews and 
especially emphasising its international dangers as a stimulus of un- 
desirable immigration in other countries. 39 At the same time he 
brought all his great influence to bear privately on individual mem- 
bers of the Government. From Lord Lansdowne he received the 
warmest sympathy, and the Foreign Office at once set inquiries on 
foot with a view to ascertaining whether combined action by the 
Powers signatory of the Berlin Treaty would be practicable. The 
responses, however, were not encouraging. 40 Meanwhile the action 
of the London Jews had been communicated to Mr. Oscar Straus 
in New York, and he persuaded Mr. Schiff to bring the question 
to the knowledge of President Roosevelt. The President, deeply 
moved by Mr. Schiff's story, acted with characteristic energy. In 
July 1902 the Secretary of State, Mr. John Hay, under the guise of 
a despatch giving instructions to the United States Minister at 
Athens in regard to certain negotiations then pending for a Natural- 
isation Treaty with Rumania, formulated a powerful indictment of 
the persecutions. Three weeks later the American Ambassadors in 
London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Rome, and Constanti- 
nople were instructed to communicate this despatch to the Govern- 
ments to which they were accredited, and to ascertain from them 
whether it might not be possible to take some steps to secure from 
Rumania the fulfilment of her obligations under Article XLIV of 
the Treaty of Berlin. 41 Thus supported, Lord Lansdowne no longer 
hesitated. In September he despatched a Circular to the Great 
Powers definitely proposing combined representations at Bucharest. 42 

28 Dated June 13, 1901. It is not printed. Its argument is largely reproduced 
in the Memorandum of the Conjoint Committee of November 1908, for full text of 
which see Jews and the War, pp. 14 et seq. 

40 Private information and documents. 

41 For a detailed and documented account of the American intervention, but 
without the full texts of the Notes of Secretary Hay (infra, pp. 38-45), see Kohler 
and Wolf : Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan States (the American Jewish Com- 
mittee, 1916), pp. 80-83, 108-137. 

42 Semi-official communique to the newspapers through Reuter's Agency, 
September 23, 1902. The fact was also privately communicated by Lord Lans- 
downe to Lord Rothschild at the time. 


As soon as this demarche got wind Rumania hastened to annul 
the offending law, and otherwise to restrain her anti-Semitic zeal. 
Nothing more was heard of the proposed collective intervention, but it 
is now known that Lord Lansdowne's proposal never took final shape 
because the Russian and German Governments refused to associate 
themselves with it. 


Dispatch from Mr. John Hay (U.S. Secretary of State) to the U.S. 
Minister at Athens. 

Department of State, Washington, 

July 17, 1902. 
Charles S. Wilson, Esquire, etc., etc., etc., Athens. 

Sir, — Your legation's despatch No. 19, of the 13th of February last, 
reported having submitted to the Roumanian Government, through its 
diplomatic representative in Greece, as the outcome of conference had by 
Mr. Francis with him on the subject, a tentative draft of the naturalization 
convention, on the lines of the draft previously submitted to the Servian 
Government, and Mr. Francis added that His Excellency the Roumanian 
Minister had informed him of his hearty approval of the project, which 
he had forwarded to his Government with his unqualified endorsement. 
Minister Francis was instructed on March 4 that his action was approved. 
No | report of progress has since been received from your legation, but 
it is presumed that the matter is receiving the consideration due to its 

For its part, the Government of the United States regards the con- 
clusion of conventions of this character as of the highest value, because 
not only establishing and recognizing the right of the citizens of the foreign 
State to expatriate themselves voluntarily and acquire the citizenship of 
this country, but also because establishing beyond the pale of doubt the 
absolute equality of such naturalized persons with native citizens of the 
United States in all that concerns their relation to or intercourse with the 
country of their former allegiance. 

The right of citizens of the United States to resort to and transact 
affairs of business or commerce in another country, without molestation 
or disfavor of any kind, is set forth in the general treaties of amity and 
commerce which the United States have concluded with foreign nations, 
thus declaring what this Government holds to be a necessary feature of 


the mutual intercourse of civilized nations and confirming the principles 
of equality, equity and comity which underlie their relations to one another. 
This right is not created by treaties ; it is recognized by them as a necessity 
of national existence, and we apply the precept to other countries, whether 
it be conventionally declared or not, as fully as we expect its extension 
to us. 

In some instances, other governments, taking a less broad view, re- 
gard the rights of intercourse of alien citizens as not extending to their 
former subjects who may have acquired another nationality. So far as 
this position is founded on national sovereignty and asserts a claim to the 
allegiance and service of the subject not to be extinguished save by the 
consent of the sovereign, it finds precedent and warrant which it is 
immaterial to the purpose of this instruction to discuss. Where such a 
claim exists, it becomes the province of a naturalization convention to adjust 
it on a ground of common advantage, substituting the general sanction of 
treaty for the individual permission of expatriation and recognizing the 
subject who may have changed allegiance as being on the same plane with 
the natural or native citizens of the other contracting State. 

Some States, few in number, be it said, make distinction between 
different classes of citizens of the foreign State, denying to some the rights 
of innocent -intercourse and commerce which by comity and natural right 
are accorded to the stranger, and doing this without regard to the origin 
of the persons adversely affected. One country in particular, although 
maintaining with the United States a treaty which unqualifiedly guarantees 
to citizens of this country the rights of visit, sojourn and commerce of the 
Empire, yet assumes to prohibit those rights to Hebrew citizens of the United 
States, whether native or naturalized. 43 This Government can lose no 
opportunity to controvert such a distinction, wherever it may appear. It 
cannot admit such discrimination among its own citizens, and can never 
assent that a foreign State, of its own volition, can apply a religious test 
to debar any American citizen from the favor due to all. 

There is no treaty of amity and commerce between the United States 
and Roumania, but this Government is pleased to believe that Roumania 
follows the precepts of comity in this regard as completely and unreservedly 
as we ourselves do, and that the American in Roumania is as welcome and 
as free in matters of sojourn and commerce and legal resorts as the Roumanian 
is in the United States. We hear no suggestion that any differential treat- 
ment of our citizens is there imposed. No religious test is known to bar 
any American from resorting to Roumania for business or pleasure. No 
attempt has been made to set up any such test in the United States whereby 

43 This is a reference to Russia. Infra, pp. 69-70. 


any American citizen might be denied recourse to the representatives of 
Roumania in order to authenticate documents necessary to the establishment 
of his legal rights or the furtherance of his personal interests in Roumania. 
And in welcoming negotiations for a convention of naturalization Roumania 
. gives proof of her desire to confirm all American citizens in their inherently 
just rights. 

Another consideration, of cognate character, presents itself. In the 
absence of a naturalization convention, some few States hold self-expatria- 
tion without the previous consent of the sovereign to be punishable, or 
to entail consequences indistinguishable from banishment. Turkey, for 
instance, only tacitly assents to the expatriation of Ottoman subjects, so 
long as they remain outside Turkish jurisdiction. Should they return 
thereto their acquired alienship is ignored. Should they seek to cure the 
matter by asking permission to be naturalized abroad, consent is coupled 
with the condition of non-return to Turkey. It is the object of a naturaliza- 
tion convention to remedy this feature by placing the naturalized alien 
on a parity with the natural-born citizen and according him due recognition 
as such. This consideration gives us added satisfaction that negotiations 
on the subject have been auspiciously inaugurated with Roumania. If I 
have mentioned this aspect of the matter, it is in order that the two Govern- 
ments may be in accord as to the bases of their agreement in this regard ; 
for it is indispensable that the essential purpose of the proposed convention 
should not be impaired or perverted by any coupled condition of banish- 
ment imposed independently by the act of either contracting party. 

The United States welcomes now, as it has welcomed from the founda- 
tion of its government, the voluntary immigration of all aliens coming hither 
under conditions fitting them to become merged in the body-politic of this 
land. Our laws provide the means for them to become incorporated in- 
distinguishably in the mass of citizens, and prescribe their absolute equality 
with the native born, guaranteeing to them equal civil rights at home and 
equal protection abroad. The conditions are few, looking to their coming 
as free agents, so circumstanced physically and morally as to supply the 
healthful and intelligent material of free citizenhood. The pauper, the 
criminal, the contagiously or incurably diseased, are excluded from the 
benefits of immigration only when they are likely to become a source of 
danger or a burden upon the community. The voluntary character of 
their coming is essential, — hence we shut out all immigration assisted or 
constrained by foreign agencies. The purpose of our generous treatment of 
the alien immigrant is to benefit us and him alike, — not to afford to another 
State a field upon which to cast its own objectionable elements. A con- 
vention of naturalization may not be construed as an instrument to facilitate 
any such process. The alien, coming hither voluntarily and prepared to 


take upon himself the preparatory, and in due course the definite obliga- 
tions of citizenship, retains thereafter, in domestic and international re- 
lations, the initial character of free agency, in the full enjoyment of which 
it is incumbent upon his adoptive State to protect him. 

The foregoing considerations, whilst pertinent to the examination of 
the purpose and scope of a naturalization treaty, have a larger aim. It 
behoves the State to scrutinize most jealously the character of the im- 
migration from a foreign land, and, if it be obnoxious to objection, to examine 
the causes which render it so. Should those causes originate in the act 
of another sovereign State, to the detriment of its neighbors, it is the pre- 
rogative of an injured State to point out the evil and to make remonstrance ; 
for with nations, as with individuals, the social law holds good that the 
right of each is bounded by the right of the neighbor. 

The condition of a large class, of the inhabitants of Roumania has for 
many years been a source of grave concern to the United States. I refer 
to the Roumanian Jews, numbering some 400,000. Long ago, while the 
Danubian principalities labored under oppressive conditions which only 
war and a general action of the European Powers sufficed to end, the per- 
secution of the indigenous Jews under Turkish rule called forth in 1872 the 
strong remonstrance of the United States. The Treaty of Berlin was hailed as 
a cure for -the wrong, in view of the express provisions of its 44th article , 
prescribing that " in Roumania, the difference of religious creeds and con- 
fessions shall not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion 
or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political 
rights, admissions to public employments, functions, and honors, or the 
exercise of the various professions and industries in any locality whatso- 
ever," and stipulating freedom in the exercise of all forms of worship to 
Roumanian dependents and foreigners alike, as well as guaranteeing that 
all foreigners in Roumania shall be treated, without distinction of creed, 
on a footing of perfect equality. 

With the lapse of time these just prescriptions have been rendered 
nugatory in great part, as regards the native Jews, by the legislation and 
municipal regulations of Roumania. Starting from the arbitrary and con- 
trovertible premises that the native Jews of Roumania domiciled there for 
centuries are " aliens not subject to foreign protection," the ability of the 
Jew to earn even the scanty means of existence that suffice for a frugal 
race has been constricted by degrees, until nearly every opportunity to 
win a livelihood is denied ; and until the helpless poverty of the Jew has 
constrained an exodus of such proportions as to cause general concern. 

The political disabilities of the Jews in Roumania, their exclusion from 
the public service and the learned professions, the limitations of their civil 
rights, and the imposition upon them of exceptional taxes, involving as they 


do wrongs repugnant to the moral sense of liberal modern peoples, are not 
so directly in point for my present purpose as the public acts which attack 
the inherent right of man as a bread winner in the ways of agriculture and 
trade. The Jews are prohibited from owning land, or even from cultivating 
it as common laborers. They are debarred from residing in the rural 
districts. Many branches of petty trade and manual production are closed 
to them in the over-crowded cities where they are forced to dwell and engage 
against fearful odds, in the desperate struggle for existence. Even as 
ordinary artisans or hired laborers they may only find employment in the 
proportion of one " unprotected alien " to two " Roumanians " under any 
one employer. In short, by the cumulative effect of successive restrictions, 
the Jews of Roumania have become reduced to a state of wretched misery. 
Shut out from nearly every avenue of self-support which is open to the poor 
of other lands, and ground down by poverty as the natural result of their 
discriminatory treatment, they are rendered incapable of lifting themselves 
from the enforced degradation they endure. Even were the fields of educa- 
tion open to them, of civil employment and of commerce, as to " Roumanian 
citizens," their penury would prevent rising by individual effort. Human 
beings, so circumstanced, have virtually no alternatives but submissive 
suffering, or flight to some land less unfavourable to them. Removal under 
such conditions is not and cannot be the healthy intelligent emigration of a 
free a:.d self-reliant being. It must be, in most cases, the mere transplanta- 
tion of an artificially produced diseased growth to a new place. 

Granting that, in better and more healthful surroundings, the morbid 
conditions will eventually change for good, such emigration is necessarily 
for a time a burden to the community upon which the fugitives may be 
cast. Self-reliance, and the knowledge and ability that evolve the power 
of self-support must be developed, and, at the same time, avenues of 
employment must be opened in quarters where competition is already keen 
and opportunities scarce. The teachings of history, and the experience 
of our own nation, show that the Jews possess in a high degree the mental 
and moral qualifications of conscientious citizenhood. No class of emigrants 
is more welcome to our shores when coming equipped in mind and body 
for entrance upon the struggle for bread, and inspired with the high purpose 
to give the best service of heart and brain to the land they adopt of their 
own free will. But when they come as outcasts, made doubly paupers 
by physical and moral oppression in their native land, and thrown upon the 
long-suffering generosity of a more favored community, their migration 
lacks the essential conditions which make alien immigration either accept- 
able or beneficial. So well is this appreciated on the Continent, that, even 
in the countries where anti-Semitism has no foothold, it is difficult for these 
fleeing Jews to obtain any lodging. America is their only goal. 


The United States offers asylum to the oppressed of all lands. But 
its sympathy with them in no wise impairs its just liberty and right to 
weigh the acts of the oppressor in the light of their effects upon this country, 
and to judge accordingly. 

Putting together the facts now painfully brought home to this Govern- 
ment during the past few years : that many of the inhabitants of Roumania 
are being forced, by artificially adverse discriminations, to quit their native 
country ; that the hospitable asylum offered by this country is almost 
the only refuge left to them ; that they come hither unfitted by the con- 
ditions of their exile to take part in the new life of this land under circum- 
stances either profitable to themselves or beneficial to the community ; 
and that they are objects of charity from the outset and for a long time, — 
the right of remonstrance against the acts of the Roumanian Government 
is clearly established in favor of this Government. Whether consciously 
and of purpose, or not, these helpless people, burdened and spurned by 
their native land, are forced by the sovereign power of Roumania upon 
the charity of the United States. This Government cannot be a tacit 
party to such an international wrong. It is constrained to protest against 
the treatment to which the Jews of Roumania are subjected, not alone 
because it has unimpeachable ground to remonstrate against the resultant 
injury to itself, but in the name of humanity. The United States may 
not authoritatively appeal to the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin, to 
which it was not and cannot become a signatory, but it does earnestly 
appeal to the principles consigned therein, because they are the principles 
of international law and eternal justice, advocating the broad toleration 
which that solemn compact enjoins, and standing ready to lend its moral 
support to the fulfilment thereof by its co-signatories, for the act of Roumania 
itself has effectively joined the United States to them as an interested party 
in this regard. 

Occupying this ground and maintaining these views, it behoves us 
to see that in concluding a naturalization convention no implication may 
exist of obligation on the part of the United States to receive and convert 
these unfortunates into citizens, and to eliminate any possible inference 
of some condition or effect tantamount to banishment from Roumania 
with inhibition of return or imposition of such legal disability upon them 
by reason of their creed, as may impair their interests in that country or 
operate to deny them judicial remedies there which all American citizens 
may justly claim in accordance with the law and comity of nations. 

I am, Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

John Hay. 


American Circular Note to the Great Powers. 

Department of State, Washington, 

August 11, 1902. 

Sra, — In the course of an instruction recently sent to the Minister accre- 
dited to the Government of Roumania in regard to the bases of negotiation 
begun with that Government looking to a convention of naturalization between 
the United States and Roumania, certain considerations were set forth for 
the Minister's guidance concerning the character of the emigration from that 
country, the causes which constrain it, and the consequences so far as they 
adversely affect the United States. 

It has seemed to the President appropriate that these considerations, 
relating as they do to the obligations entered into by the signatories of the 
Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878. should be brought to the attention of the 
Governments concerned and commended to their consideration in the hope 
that, if they are so fortunate as to meet the approval of the several Powers, 
such measures as to them may seem wise may be taken to persuade the 
Government of Roumania to reconsider the subject of the grievances in 

(This note continues in the language of the foregoing despatch 
from the words : " The United States welcomes now, etc." down 
to words : " as an interested party in this regard.") 

You will take an early occasion to read this instruction to the Minister 
for Foreign Affairs and, should he request it, leave with him a copy. 

John Hay. 

Reply of Great Britain. 

(Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate.) 

Foreign Office, 

September 2, 1902. 

Your Excellency,— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of 
your note of the 23rd ultimo, inclosing a copy of a dispatch from Mr. Secretary 
Hay on the subject of the conditions of the Jews in Roumania. 

His Majesty's Government joins with the United States Government in 
deploring the depressed condition of the Roumanian Jews and in regarding 
with apprehension the results of their enforced emigration. 

His Majesty's Government will place themselves in communi ation with 


the other Towers signatory of the Treaty of Berlin, with a view to a joint 
representation to the Roumanian Government on the subject. 

Frahcis Bektib. 
(In the absence of the Marquis of Lansdoime.) 

(" Foreign Relations of the United States (1902)," pp. 910 et seq., 42 et 
seq., and 550). 



In connection with the Balkan complications of the last ten years, 
which form the overture to the present war, the Jewish organisations 
in Western Europe and America — chiefly the London Jewish Conjoint 
Committee — lost no opportunity of keeping the grievances of the 
Rumanian Jews before the Great Powers and of maintaining the 
liberties already won in South-Eastern Europe. The work has 
been of a more arduous and far-reaching character than the public 
suspect, and, although it has not achieved final success, it has been 
far from unfruitful. Of this work it is only possible to speak in a 
very summary way, as much of it is still confidential and all of it is 
directly related to negotiations still pending and necessarily belonging 
to the domain of what is invidiously called secret diplomacy. 

In 1908, on the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and the 
Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary, the Conjoint Committee seized the 
opportunity of endeavouring to reopen the Rumano- Jewish Question. 
The annexation was a technical infraction of the Berlin Treaty and 
required the sanction of the Great Powers, for which probably a Con- 
ference would be held. The Conjoint Committee addressed to Sir 
Edward Grey a request that the scope of the proposed Conference 
should be extended to other infractions of the Treaty, and accompanied 
it with a review of the Rumano-Jewish Question, which constitutes 
one of the most important State Papers produced in the Jewish 
community. 44 Unfortunately the projected Conference was abandoned, 

44 " Memorandum on the Treaty Rights of the Jews of Rumania" (November 
1908). Printed for confidential use, 16 pp. fep. Reprinted in Jews and the War, 
pp. 14-30. Also in the Annual Reports of the Board of Deputies and Anglo- 
Jewish Association (1909), and in Kohler and Wolf, op. cit. 


but Sir Edward Grey was so impressed by the statements of the 
Conjoint Committee that he ordered an investigation to be made, 
and he afterwards formally avowed, in a letter to the Conjoint Com- 
mittee, that the charges made in the Memorandum were accurate 
and that Rumania had not fulfilled her Treaty pledges. This perhaps 
may not seem, to be a great gain, but those who know anything of 
international politics will be aware that an official statement of this 
kind has considerable practical importance, and, indeed, it was not 
lost upon the Cabinet of Bucharest. 

The last occasions on which attempts were made to put an 
end to the Rumanian scandal were in connection with the Confer- 
ences of London, St. Petersburg, and Bucharest, which liquidated the 
various questions arising out of the Balkan wars in 1912-13. Here 
two questions confronted the Conjoint Committee. While the inter- 
national questions at issue were confined to the trans-Danubian 
States, all that was necessary was to secure for the populations of 
the transferred territories in that region a reaffirmation of the clauses 
of the Treaties of 1830 and 1878, by which the liberties of racial 
and religious minorities were guaranteed. When, however, Rumania 
joined in the war, this question became of much greater importance, 
and it involved the reopening of the whole question of Rumania's 
violation of the Treaty of Berlin. In spite of the efforts of the Con- 
joint Committee, neither the three Conferences of London, nor the 
Conference of St. Petersburg dealt with these questions. At the 
Conference of Bucharest the United States Government, at the in- 
stance of the American Jewish Committee, made a suggestion that 
the civil and religious liberties of the populations of the territories 
transferred under the proposed Treaty should be specially guaranteed- 
On the proposal of the Rumanian Prime Minister, however, the 
Conference agreed that such securities were not necessary, but 
expressed their readiness to give a verbal assurance that the wishes of 
the United States would be fully realised. 45 A long correspondence 
ensued between the Conjoint Committee and the Foreign Office, and 
eventually Sir Edward Grey agreed to a suggestion of the Committee 

46 Infra, p. 47. 


that the Great Powers should be consulted with a view to making 
their sanction of the new territorial arrangements in the Balkans 
conditional on the guarantee of full civil and religious liberty to all 
the inhabitants of the annexed territories. 46 This important assurance 
was reaffirmed by the Secretary of State towards the end of July 
1914, within a week of the outbreak of the present war. 


Extract from the Protocols op the Conference of Bucharest. 
Pro'.ocole No. 6.— Seance du Mardi, 23 Juillet (5 Aout), 1913. 

[Le President] fait part a la Conference de la note suivante que lui a 
remise S.E. Monsieur Jackson, Ministre des Etats-Unis d'Amerique a Bucarest. 

" Le Gouvemement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique desire faire savoir qu'il 
regarderait aveo satisfaction si une provision accordant pleine liberte civile 
et religieuse aux habitants de tout territoire que pourrait etre assujetti a la 
souverainte de quiconque des cinq Puissances ou qui pourrait etre transfere 
de la jurisdiction de l'une des Puissances a celle d'une autre, pourrait etre 
introduite dans toute convention conclue a Bucarest." 

M. Maioresco estime que les delegues sont unanimes a reconnaitre pleine- 
ment, en fait et en droit, le principe qui a inspire la note precitee, le droit public 
des Etats constitutionnels representes a cette Conference en ayant consacr6 
de longue date l'application. Le President pense done que la note des Etats- 
Unis d'Amerique ne saurait soulever aucune difficulte : il est peut-etre bon de 
rappeler quelquefois les principes, meme lorsqu'ils sont universellement admis. 
Aussi, croit-il etre l'interprete des sentiments de MM. les Plenipotentiaires en 
declarant que les habitants de tout territoire nouvellement acquis auront, 
sans distinction de religion, la meme pleine liberte civile et religieuse que 
tous les autres habitants de l'etat. 

M. Venizelos considere qu'a la suite des declarations du President, qui 
seront consignees au Protocole, toute insertion dans le traite a conclure, d'un 
principe deja universellement reconnu serait superflue. 

Cette maniere de voir de M. le premier delegue de Grece a recueilli 1'as- 
sentiment unanime. 

(" Le Traite de Paix de Bucarest — Protocoles de la Conference," Bucarest, 
1913, pp. 24-25.) 

18 Infra, p. 51. For a fuller text of the correspondence, see Annual Report of 
the Board of Deputies (1913), pp. 54-74. 


Extracts from Correspondence between the Conjoint Committee and 
Sir Edward Grey. 

Conjoint Jewish Committee, 

19 Finsbury Cnscus, E.C. 

132A October, 1913.- 

Sir, — The Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee of the London Committee 
of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo- Jewish Association have had under 
their consideration the diplomatic acts — principally the Treaty of Bucharest 
— -by which the new territorial system in the Near East has been adjusted, 
and they have instructed us to invite the attention of His Majesty's Govern- 
ment to the omission from those documents of provisions either confirming 
or repeating on their own account, for the benefit of the annexed territories, 
the guarantees of civil and religious liberty and equality contained in the 
Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London of February 3rd, 1830, 
and in Articles V, XXVII, XXXIV, XLIV, and LXII of the Treaty of 

Owing to the vast changes which have been made in the distribution of 
the Jewish communities throughout the region lying between the Danube 
and the ^Egean, and more especially in view of the annexations to the Kingdom 
of Roumania, where hitherto the Civil and Religious Liberty Clauses of the 
Treaty of Berlin have been systematically evaded, this question has caused 
the Jewish people the gravest anxiety. The Conjoint Committee are well 
aware that in four of the annexing States, namely, Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, 
and Montenegro, the Constitutions provide for the equal rights of all religious 
denominations, and they gratefully acknowledge that for many years past the 
Jews in those countries have had no reason to complain ; but in the new condi- 
tions of mixed races and creeds which confront those States, and in face of 
the symptoms already apparent of an accentuation of the long-standing inter- 
confessional bitterness and strife, they prefer not to relinquish the international 
obligations by which the rights of their co-religionists have hitherto been 
secured. In this view they find themselves supported not only by all the 
Jewish communities of the Balkans, but also by all of the religious minorities 
in the dominions which have recently changed hands. The reasonableness 
of their view is further supported by the constitutional changes effected in 
like circumstances in Moldo-Wallachia and Servia three-quarters of a century 
ago to the prejudice of the Jews, and also by the continued encouragement to 
religious intolerance afforded by the legalised oppression of a quarter of a 
million Jews in the Kingdom of Roumania. 

The question was not ignored at the Peace Conference at Bucharest, but 


it failed to receive any contractual solution. At the sitting of August 8th a 
scheme of religious, scholastic and cultural liberty was discussed, but no 
agreement was reached, owing to irreconcilable differences between the 
Patriarchists and the Bxarchists. Moreover, the scheme as drawn up was 
confined to Christian communities (Protocol No. 10). At the sitting of 
August 5th, the question was raised in its wider aspects by a commun'cation 
from the United States Government; expressing the hope that a provision 
would be introduced into the Treaty " according full civil and religious 
liberty to the inhabitants of any territory subject to the sovereignty 
of any of the five Powers, or which might be transferred from the jurisdiction 
of any one of them to that of another." This also met with no adequate 
response. M. Maioresco, the Chief Roumanian plenipotentiary, expressed 
the opinion that such a provision was unnecessary, " as the principle inspiring 
it had long been recognised, in fact and in law, by the public law of the 
Constitutional States represented at the Conference," but he added that 
he was willing to declare on behalf of the plenipotentiaries that " the 
inhabitants of any territory newly acquired will have, without distinction 
of religion, the same full civil and religious liberty, as all the other inhabi- 
tants of the State." In this view the other plenipotentiaries concurred. 
(Protocol No. 6.) 

The Jewish Conjoint Committee regret that they are unable to accept 
either the reasoning or the assurances of M. Maioresco for the following 
reasons : — 

1. Even if it were true that the constitutions of all the five contracting 
States assure civil and religious liberty to their inhabitants without distinc- 
tion of religion — Roumania herself is a flagrant exception — it would not afford 
as permanent a guarantee as an international obligation. The circumstances 
which render such a guarantee necessary in the present case have already 
been referred to above. 

2. In previous territorial changes in the Near East, the liberal provi- 
sions of the constitutions of the annexing States have not been held sufficient 
for the protection of religious minorities. Thus, in 1864, when the Ionian 
Islands were transferred to Greece, the Powers specifically extended to the 
new territories the civil and religious liberty obligations imposed on the 
Hellenic Kingdom in 1830 (see Article IV of the Treaty of London of March 
20th, 1864). Again in 1881, when Thessaly was ceded to Greece, the religious 
liberty obligations of 1830 were repeated in the Treaty of Cession for 
the benefit of the Mussulman population (Convention of May 14th, 1881, 
Article VIII). A similar course was adopted by the Great Powers in 
1886, when Eastern Roumelia was virtually annexed to Bulgaria (Article IV 
of Arrangement of April 5th, 1886 ; cj. Eastern Roumelia Statute, 
Article XXIV). 


3. Roumania herself is not content to rely on the national constitutions 
of the other Balkan States where the destinies of her own expatriated brethren 
in race and religion are concerned. Although she persuaded the Conference 
of Bucharest to reject the American proposal to insert binding guarantees for 
the equitable treatment of racial and religious minorities in the annexed 
territories generally, she insisted on the adoption of an Annexe to the Protocols 
of the Conference pledging the signatory States to grant equal rights and 
religious and scholastic freedom to the Koutzo-Vlachs residing within their 
dominions. It is difficult to understand why these Treaty guarantees should 
be required for communities which have a Government at Bucharest, attached 
to them by racial and religious sympathies, to look after their interests, and 
not for the Jews, who have no such resource in the event of their rights being 

4. The terms of M. Maioresco's declaration in regard to " the inhabitants 
of any territory newly acquired " are ambiguous, and in the case of the 
.Jews of the northern districts of Bulgaria, now annexed to Roumania, 
might, and no doubt would be, interpreted as assimilating them to the 
oppressed Jewish communities of the annexed State. Moreover, in view 
of what happened to the Jews of the Dobrudja when that province was 
acquired by Roumania in 1878, any unilateral assurances from the Cabinet 
of Bucharest on this subject must fail to inspire confidence. The action 
of the Roumanian Government on that occasion was dealt with by us in 
the letter we had the honour of addressing to you on July 13th last, and it 
will consequently suffice to state now that the Jews of the Dobrudja were 
deprived of their national rights for thirty years after the annexation, and 
even then they experienced great difficulty in obtaining them. We cannot 
contemplate without anxiety the possibility of a repetition of this applica- 
tion of the principle formulated by M. Maioresco. 

For these reasons the Jewish Conjoint Committee regard with grave 
apprehension the omission from the Treaty of Bucharest of guarantees of 
civil and religious equality for the inhabitants of the territories which have 
changed hands in virtue of that instrument, and they trust they may rely 
on His Majesty's Government to take such steps as will assure to those 
inhabitants the full enjoyment of the high protection accorded them by 
the London Protocol of 1830 and the Treaty of Berlin. 

They venture to suggest that the objects they have in view might be 
attained by a collective note to the States signatory of the Treaties of 
London, Bucharest and Constantinople, declaring that the Great Powers 
regard the Civil and Religious Liberty clauses of the Protocol of 1830 and 
the Treaty of Berlin as binding upon all of them within their new frontiers 
and throughout all their territories. The Committee hope that His 


Majesty's Government may see their way to propose such a note to the 
Great Powers. 

We are, Sir, 
Your humble and obedient Servants, 
D. L. Alexander, 
President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews, 
Claude G. Montefiore, 

President, Anglo-Jewish Association. 

To The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., His Majesty's 
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, etc., etc., etc. 

Foreign Office, 
October 29th, 1913. 
Gentlemen, — I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge 
the receipt of your letter of October 13th, and to observe in reply that the 
Articles of the Treaty of Berlin, to which you refer, are in no way abrogated 
by the territorial changes in the Near East, and remain as binding as they 
have been hitherto as regards all territories covered by those Articles at 
the time when the Treaty was signed. 

His Majesty's Government will, however, consult with the other Powers 
as to the policy of reaffirming in some way the provisions of the Treaty of 
Berlin for the protection of the religious and other liberties of minorities 
in the territories referred to, when the question of giving formal recognition 
by the Powers to the recent territorial changes in the Balkan Peninsula is 

I am, Gentlemen, 

Your most obedient, humble servant, 

Eyre A. Crowe. 

The Conjoint Jewish Committee. 

Conjoint Jewish Committee, 

19 Finsbury Circus, E.C. 
17th November, 1913. 

Sir, — We have had the honour of receiving the letter of the 29th ult. 
addressed to us on your behalf by Sir Eyre A. Crowe, and we have duly 
submitted it to our colleagues of the Conjoint Jewish Committee. 

We are desired by the Committee to thank you for this communica- 


tion and to express their lively satisfaction with the assurances you are 
good enough to give them and which appear to them to meet the necessities 
of the case they had the honour of placing before you. 

The Committee propose, with your permission, to submit to you at a 
later stage, for the consideration of His Majesty's Government, an amend <1 
formula of civil and religious liberty in the Balkans, which they think will 
more clearly express the intentions of the Conference of London and the 
Congress of Berlin than the provisions on the same subject contained in the 
Protocol No. 3 of 1830 and the Treaty of 1878. They trust that His 
Majesty's Government may find it possible to make this or some similar 
amendment the basis for the proposed consultation with the other Great 
Powers, as they venture to think that in this way a means may be found of 
obviating a repetition of the misunderstandings by which the Jews of 
Roumania have hitherto been deprived of the rights sought to be conferred 
upon them by the Treaty of Berlin, besides securing the rights of 
other religious and racial minorities in the Balkans on a footing of perfect 

We, are, Sir, 

Your most obedient humble servants, 
David L. Alexander, 
President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews, 
Claude G. Montefioee, 

President, Anglo-Jewish Association. 

To The Right Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., etc., etc. 

Conjoint Jewish Committee, 

19 Finsbury Circus, E.C 
\2th March, 1914. 

Sir, — Referring to the letter we had the honour of addressing to you 
on the 17th November last, we now beg to submit to you, for the considera- 
tion of His Majesty's Government, a revised formula of civil and religious 
liberty in the Balkans in the hope that His Majesty's Government may be 
able to recommend it to the other Great Powers signatory of the Treaty 
of Berlin for application to the territories which have recently changed 
hands in the Near East under the provisions of the Treaties of London and 
Bucharest, and their subsidiary diplomatic Acts. 

As you are aware. Civil and Religious Liberty in Bulgaria, Montenegro, 
Servia and Roumania is at present guaranteed in identic terms by Articles 
V, XXVII, XXXIV- V, XLIV of the Treaty of Berlin, and in Greece by 
the concluding alinea of Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London of the 
3rd February 1830. We beg to suggest that in the extension of these 


stipulations to the new territories they shall be elucidated by the addition 
to each of the following paragraph : — 

AH persons of whatever religious belief born or residing in the territories 

annexed to the Kingdom of in virtue of the Treaties of London and 

Bucharest, and who do not claim a foreign nationality and cannot be shown 
to be claimed as nationals of a foreign state shall be entitled to full civil and 

political rights as nationals of the Kingdom of in accordance with 

the foregoing stipulations. 

Some slight modification of this paragraph will be required to meet 
the special circumstances of each case, as, for example, the omission of 
the reference to the Treaty of London in the case of Roumania, and perhaps, 
the insertion of the paragraph before the final alinea of Article XLIV of 
the Treaty of Berlin instead of its addition to that Article. 

In making this proposal we are chiefly actuated by a desire to obviate 
as far as may be possible a repetition in the territories annexed to the 
Kingdom of Roumania of the cruel evasion of Article XLIV of the Treaty 
of Berlin by which the native Jews of Roumania have hitherto been deprived 
of their civil and political rights. It will be within your recollection that 
this evasion was contrived by arbitrarily declaring all the native Jews to 
be ipso facto foreigners and by submitting them in that capacity to harsh 
disabilities which, while apparently applicable to all foreigners, in reality 
only affected them. We are further impressed by the fact that Bulgaria, 
Servia and Greece have each acquired a considerable addition to their Jewish 
populations and, although we acknowledge most gratefully the fidelity with 
which those States have hitherto performed their obligation in regard to 
civil and religious liberty, we think it wise, in view of the evil precedent 
created by Roumania, to strengthen the hands of their rulers and statesmen 
by extending those obligations in the form we now suggest to the territories 
they have recently acquired. 

Our aims will, we think, be attained by the formula suggested above 
without in any way enlarging the scope of the original stipulations, as those 
stipulations were understood by their authors and the majority of the States 
to which they have hitherto been applied. It is to be noted that a similar 
amendment of Article XLIV was actually suggested by the Italian repre- 
sentative, the Count de Launay, at the Berlin Congress, with a view to 
obviating the very evasion of the Treaty subsequently effected by Roumania, 
and it was only rejected by the Congress because it was desired to adopt 
an identic formula for all the Balkan States and because it was felt that the 
formula as it stood " parait de nature a concilier tous les interets en cause." 
(British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxix. pp. 1058-9.) 


Now that it has been shown that this anticipation was illusory, we 
venture to hope that His Majesty's Government may see their way to realize 
the intentions of the Berlin Congress by suggesting to the Great Powers the 
amendment we have proposed, and that their recognition of the territorial 
changes in the Near East will be made conditional upon its adoption 
by all the annexing States, and more particularly by the Kingdom of 

We are, Sir, 

Your most obedient humble servants. 
David L. Alexander, 
President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews, 
Claude G. Montefiore, 

President, Anglo-Jewish Association. 

To The Right Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., etc, etc 

(For the humanitarian interventions on behalf of the Jews of 
Morocco see " The Conferences of Madrid and Algeciras," infra, 
pp. 88-99.) 

(1890 AND 1906). 

It will be noted that none of the diplomatic interventions took 
cognizance of the ill-treatment of the Jews in Russia, 46 * although until 
the recent Revolution it afforded, in magnitude and cruelty, the 
worst example of religious persecution known to modern Europe. 47 
The cynical reason has already been indicated. But if international 
politics has affected to ignore the Jewish question in Russia, that 
question has not been without a very distinct influence on the evolu- 
tion of the European international system. No survey of the Jewish 
problem in international politics would be complete without a refer- 
ence to the curious part played by the Russo-Jewish question in the 
orientation of Russian policy which made for the alliance with France 

*«» The United States was a conspicuous exception. See especially Mr. Blaine's 
despatch of February 18, 1891. (Foreign Relations of U.S. 1891, p. 737.) 

47 Wolf and Dicey: Legal Sufferings of the Jews in Russia (London, 1912). 
Semenoff and Wolf : The Russian Government and the Massacres (London, 1907). 


and through it for the Triple Entente. It is well known that even 
after the termination of the Russo-German secret treaty of mutual 
neutrality in 1890, the Tsar Alexander III remained for a long time 
reluctant to come to terms with Republican France. Towards the 
end of 1890 there was a fresh outbreak of official anti-Semitism in 
Russia, and the bitter cry of the persecuted Jews was heard all over 
Europe. At that moment it happened that negotiations for a large 
loan had been entered into by the Russian Treasury with the house 
of Rothschild, and a preliminary contract had actually been signed. 
As soon as the news of the persecutions reached New Court, Lord 
Rothschild resolved to break off the negotiations. At his instance, 
M. Wyshnigradski, the Russian Finance Minister, was informed by 
the Paris House that unless the oppression of the Jews were stopped 
they would be compelled to withdraw from the loan operation. 
Deeply mortified by this attempt on the part of a Jewish banking 
firm to deal with him de puissance a puissance, the Tsar peremptorily 
cancelled the contract and ordered that overtures should be made 
to a non-Jewish French syndicate headed by M. Hoskier of Paris. 
Thus was forged the main financial link in the chain of common 
interests which soon after led to the Dual Alliance. Incidentally, 
it may be mentioned that one of the effects of the Alliance was to 
secure to the Tsar a much larger immunity from criticism in his 
persistent ill-treatment of the Jews. 48 

Fifteen years later the Jewish question also played a part in the 
curious Russo-German rapprochement which nearly wrecked the Dual 
Alliance. Much light has been shed upon this incident by the 
recent publication of the late Tsar's secret correspondence with the 
German Emperor " and other Russian State documents, notably a 
Memorandum on the Jewish question drawn up by Count Lamsdorf 
in January 1906. 50 Negotiations for the adhesion of Russia to the 

18 The story is told by M. Ernest Daudet in his Histoire Diplomatique 
de V Alliance Franco-Russe, pp. 261-262, but the present writer is able to confirm 
it from other sources. 

49 The famous " Nikky-Willy " correspondence (see Times, September 4, 
1917 ; Daily Telegraph, September 4, 27 and 29, 1917 ; and Morning Post, 
September 15, 1917.) 

60 Infra, pp. 57-62. 


Anglo-French. Entente had been opened in the winter of 1903, but 
owing to the war with Japan and the revolutionary outbreak in 
Russia the Tsar's views on the subject had changed. Worked on 
by the German Emperor, he imagined himself a victim of English 
intrigue, and he concluded with the Kaiser at Bjoerkoeon July 23, 1905, 
the bases of a new Triple Alliance to consist of Russia, Germany, 
and France. While the Treaty was still unratified certain reaction- 
aries in Russia seized the opportunity of endeavouring to give it a 
specially anti- Jewish bias. On . the one hand the bureaucracy had 
persuaded themselves that the Jews were the main authors of the 
October Revolution, and on the other Count Witte and his colleagues 
in the Cabinet were furious at the renewed rebuffs they had received 
at the hands of the House of Rothschild in their efforts to raise new 
loans on the Paris and London markets. 51 It was in these circum- 
stances that Count Lamsdorf prepared a Memorandum proposing 
to the Tsar that an agreement should be concluded with Germany 
providing for the special surveillance of Jewish activities on the lines 
of a secret Protocol which had been drawn up by the two Powers 
on March 14, 1904, for the similar surveillance and extradition of 
Anarchists. 52 At the same time the Count suggested that the Pope 
should be asked to adhere to this new Holy Alliance. This strange 
proposal was approved by the Tsar, who ordered the immediate 
initiation of negotiations with the Wilhelmstrasse. In due course 
this instruction was acted upon, 53 but in the following May Count 
Lamsdorf fell, and with the entry of M. Izvolsky into the Russian 
Foreign Office a new and saner direction was given to Russian Foreign 
policy. Nothing more was heard either of the Bjoerkoe Treaty or 
of the proposed Triple Alliance against the Jews. 

51 The statement in the Memorandum that Messrs. Rothschild had been 
excluded by the Russian Government from these loan operations is inaccurate. 
The exclusion had come from the other side, and at the very time that the Memo- 
randum was being prepared Count Witte had sent representatives of the Finance 
Ministry to London to endeavour to overcome Lord Rothschild's reluctance. 

62 This Protocol is published in vol. vi. of the Secret Documents published by 
the Russian Revolutionary Government in February 1918. 

53 Secret letter from the Kaiser to the Tsar published in the Soviet organ 
Inviestia, December 19, 1917. 



The Proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance. 

(The footnotes appended to the following document are those of Count 
Lamsdorf himself. Footnotes by the Kditor will be found at the end.) 



The events of the year 1905, which became particularly acute at the 
beginning of October last, and, after a number of so-called " strikes," 
culminated in an armed revolt at Moscow and in other cities and localities 
of the Empire, show quite clearly that the Russian revolutionary move- 
ment, apart from its deep social economic causes of an internal nature, has 
also a quite definite international character. This side of the revolutionary 
movement, which deserves very serious attention, manifests itself chiefly 
in the fact that it is supported to a large extent from abroad. 

This is clearly indicated by the striking phenomenon that the Russian 
revolutionists dispose of an enormous quantity of arms imported from abroad, 
as well as of considerable pecuniary means, since there can be no doubt that 
the revolutionary movement hostile to the Government, including the organis- 
ing of various kinds of strikes, must have cost the revolutionaries large 
sums of money. 

Since it must be recognised that such support of the revolutionary 
movement with arms and money could hardly be set to the account of 
foreign governments (with the exception of certain isolated cases, as for 
instance, the support of the Finnish movement by Sweden, and perhaps the 
partial support of the Polish movement by Austria), one inevitably arrives 
at the further conclusion that the support of our revolutionary movement 
enters into the calculations of some foreign capitalist organisations. 

This result must be coupled with the fact that the Russian revolu- 
tionary movement is altogether distinguished by an alien racial character, 
since it was precisely the various allogenes — the Armenians, Georgians, 
Letts, Esthonians, Finns, Poles, etc. — who rose one after another against 
the Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining, if not complete political 
autonomy, at least equal rights with the native population of the Empire. 
When one considers, moreover, that, as is established with sufficient certainty, 
among these allogenes a most important part is played by the Jews, who 
have figured and still figure as a specially active and aggressive element 
of the revolution, whether as individuals, or as leaders of the movement, 
or in the shape of entire organisations (e.g. the Jewish Bund in the Western 


region), one may assume with certainty that the aforesaid support of the 
revolutionary movement from abroad emanates precisely from Jewish 
capitalist circles. 

In this respect one cannot ignore the coincidence of several phenomena 
which could hardly be accidental. This coincidence rather logically leads 
to the further result that our revolutionary movement is not only, as already 
stated, supported from abroad, but to a certain extent also directed from 
there. The strikes broke out with particular force precisely in October 
last, that is to say, at a time when our Government was making the attempt 
to bring about a large foreign loan without the participation of the Roth- 
schilds, x and just in the nick of time for the frustration of the realisation 
of that financial scheme. The panic provoked by it among the holders 
of Russian securities and the hurried sale of those securities could not but 
procure in the end, as was safely to be expected, new profits for the Jewish 
capitalists and bankers, who speculated consciously and openly, as in Paris 
for instance, on the fall of Russian securities.* 

On the other hand, the hostile movement against the Government, 
which flared up immediately after the promulgation of the Manifesto of 
October 30th, assumed for a time milder forms as soon as the bulk of the 
Russian people, of whom the revolutionists had taken no account at first, 
responded to the hostile manifestations against the Government by pogroms 
upon the Jews. 2 

This connexion between the Russian revolutionary movement and the 
foreign Jewish organisations is, moreover, confirmed in an obvious manner 
by some significant facts which have even percolated through the Press. 
Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned wholesale importation of arms 
into Russia, which, as it transpires from the Agency reports, is carried on 
very largely from the continent of Europe via England, becomes quite 
intelligible when one considers that already in June 1905, precisely in 
England, an Anglo-Jewish Committee for collecting donations for the equip- 
ment of fighting groups among Russian Jews was openly organised with 
the most active co-operation of the well-known Russophobe publicist Lucien 
Wolf. 3 On the other hand, on account of the melancholy consequences 
of the revolutionary agitation, which recoiled upon the Jews themselves, 
in the very same England a Committee of Jewish capitalists was founded 
under the presidency of Lord Rothschild, which concentrated enormous 
sums of money, collected by way of subscriptions in France, England and 
Germany, for the ostensible purpose of granting relief to the Jewish subjects 
of Russia who had suffered by the pogroms. Lastly, the Jews in America 
are organising collections both for the victims and for the arming of the 
Jewish youths, without formally separating these two aims from one 

* Actual Privy Councillor Nelidow's despatch of December 1-14, 1905. 


another, f * There is thus no room for doubt as to the cose connexion of 
the Russian revolution with the Jewish question in general, and with the 
foreign Jewish organisations in particular, which connexion is already 
perfectly clear from the point of view of its fundamental principles, since 
the founders of the Socialist doctrine, Lassalle and Marx, who wield so 
great an influence on the present mind of the Russian University youth, 
were notoriously both of Jewish origin. Nor can it be in any way doubted 
that the practical direction of the Russian revolutionary movement is in 
Jewish hands. While our newspapers pass over, no doubt intentionally, 
the leading part played by them in almost complete silence, it is no longer 
deemed necessary to make a secret of it abroad, even in Socialist circles. 
A member of the Jewish Working-men's Union (Bund), named Hervaille, 
thus declared openly at a meeting of the Dutch Socialists at Amsterdam 
on the 22nd October (November 4th) that in spite of the persecutions to 
which they were subjected, it is precisely the Jews who are standing at 
the head of the Russian revolutionary movement.^ In Italy, numerous 
meetings of sympathy with the said movement, which in the course of last 
November were organised at Rome, Milan, Turin, etc. ostensibly, " Pro 
liberta Russa," ended in manifestations " Pro ebrei Russi." § 

Thus, with the evident promotion of the Russian revolution by the Jews 
of all countries, in one form or another, to a larger or smaller extent, providing 
it above all with intelligent leaders, arms and pecuniary means, the so-to-say 
international side of our revolutionary movement becomes perfectly clear, 
and at the same time reveals those forces which the Imperial Government 
must combat, as well as the factors of State and public life abroad, on which it 
must rely in this struggle. 

Starting from the idea set out above, namely, that our revolutionary 
movement is being actively supported and partly directed by the forces of 
universal Jewry, we also discover with great probability the organising and 
intellectual centre where the main supports and feeding organs of the militant 
hostility to the Government in Russia are hiding themselves. That is the 
famous pan- Jewish universal union established in the year 1860, the " Alliance 
Israelite Universelle," with a Central Committee in Paris, which possesses 
gigantic pecuniary means, disposes of an enormous membership, and is sup- 
ported by the Masonic lodges of every description (according to some reports, 
they have again been carried into Russia in recent years), which represent 

■f Communicated by Emil Deschamps in the Journal de St. Petersbourg, of 
December 23, 1905. 

% Despatch from the Imperial Ambassador at the Hague of October 24, 1905, 
No. 22. 

§ Despatch from the Imperial Ambassador at Rome of November 29, 1905, 
No. 23. 


the obedient organs of that universal organisation. |j 5 The principal aim of 
the "Alliance Israelite Universelle " — the all-round triumph of anti-Christian 
and anti-monarchist Jewry (which has already taken practical possession of 
France) by means of Socialism which is to serve as a bait for the ignorant 
masses — could not but find the State system of Russia — a land of peasants, 
Orthodoxy and monarchism — an obstacle in its path. Hence the fight 
against the existing Government, which was started with consummate calcula- 
tion at the very moment of our greatest weakness brought about by the 
Japanese war. Tha is also why the chief watchword of this inexorable 
campaign at the present moment is universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage ; 
that is to say, it fights for a principle which if recognised by the Government 
would bring about immediately, even before the meeting of the State Duma, 
the complete removal of the existing historical-legal impediments to the 
triumph of Jewry in Russia, though their complete abolition is not likely to 
be welcome to the future chosen men of the Russian land either. 

The said factors, which support the fight of the revolutionary elements 
against the Imperial Government from abroad, also afford on the other hand 
the opportunity of recognising those forces by whose joint work a favourable 
soil for a successful struggle with international revolutionary Socialism might 
be created. As a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that, in accordance 
with the main considerations set out above, the universally organised inter- 
national revolutionary Jewry must be confronted by other enemies, apart 
from Russia, who by that alone must become the friends and allies of the 
Imperial Government. Anti-monarchist Jewry, sustained by money, cannot 
help undermining in every way the Monarchical German Empire, sustained 
by its material power. On the other hand, owing to a tradition centuries 
old, the universally organised anti-Christian Judaism cannot help seeing an 
irreconcilable enemy in the only Christian community that is likewise 
organised on a universal and centralised basis, viz. the Roman Catholic 

It seems, therefore, that the friendly relations which have recently been 
brought about so happily between the Imperial Government and the German 
Empire, as well as the Holy See, are destined to exercise a very beneficent 
influence with regard to the anti-monarchical and anti-Christian revolutionary 
movement in Europe. 

As for the Vatican, it must be remembered first of all that the Protestant 
Government of Germany has recognised long ago the full importance of the 
Holy See for the defence of the traditional foundations of European culture. 

|| According to the rules of French Freemasonry, promotion to the eighteenth 
degree makes the recipient automatically a member of the " Alliance Israelite 
I'niverselle," while out of the nine members of the Secret Supreme Council of 
Freemasonry five must be Jews. 


While in its internal policy, it is leaning on the Catholic Centre-p \rty, it has 
necessarily arrived at a friendly accord with the Pope in its foreign policy as 
well. As for Russia, the friendly assistance of the Vatican might likewise 
prove to be of supreme importance just in the sense indicated above. Even 
apart from the authoritative influence of the Holy See, through the medium 
of the local clergy, especially in our Polish affairs — in this respect, the latest 
Encyclical of the Pope to the Bishops of Poland presents a significant step in 
meeting the wishes of the Russian Government — the Vatican could render us 
an invaluable service by communicating matter-of-fact data on the dissolving 
Jewish freemasonry organisation and its branches, whose threads converge 
in Paris — an organisation about which our Government is unfortunately 
but little informed, whereas the Vatican is sure to watch its activity in the 
most attentive manner. 

As for Germany, on the other hand, any further approach of its Govern- 
ment towards Russia — and one of a still closer nature than the agreement 
founded on the Protocol of March 1st, 1904, on combating Anarchism — 
would meet with unqualified sympathy at Berlin, since it cannot be over- 
looked that, next to Russia, Germany is undoubtedly the first State that 
will have to sustain the struggle with the Social-Revolutionary party. 
Both the Government and Society in Germany already take note at the 
present moment with the greatest apprehension of the indubitable effect 
of the Russian events on the Social-Democratic and Labour question, not 
to mention the movement of specific hostility to the Government in the 
Provinces of Prussian Poland. 

Indeed, the West-European Socialists of various nationalities do not 
con ider it any longer necessary to make a secret of their intention to in- 
augurate in this very month of January 1906, a movement hostile to the 
Government of Germany — which is to reach its highest development on 
the 1st of May 1906 — and has already started it in Prussia and in Saxony 
with the self-same watchword of " Universal Suffrage." It could hardly 
be doubted that behind this movement — which they intend to organise, 
in accordance with the resolutions passed by the Socialist Congresses held 
at Jena and Breslau, by the same means as in Russia — there stand in reality 
the above indicated international aims and considerations of principle, 
that is to say, the same anti-Christian and anti-monarchical factors which 
had likewise been and are still in operation in the Russian revolutionary 
movement. At any rate, according to an observation by the Deutsche 
Tageszeitung, which has made it its special aim to organise the fight against 
the impending general European revolution, the more candid publicists 
of Social-Revolutionary tendencies are already expressing unceremoniously 
their hope that the Russian movement of hostility to the Government only 
presents a prelude to that general European upheaval which, among other 
things, is to destroy utterly the monarchical order of contemporary Europe. 


When one places oneself on this standpoint, one cannot help perceiving 
in everything said above nothing else but partial manifestations of a general 
revolutionary scheme the menace of which is not confined to Russia, and 
which, according to the formula of the well-known Liebknecht, consists 
essentially in realising a Republic in politics, Socialism in economics, and 
Atheism in the domain of religion. 

In view of the considerations set forth above, no doubt can remain 
as to the absolute necessity of a confidential and sincere exchange of views 
on our part, in the sense indicated above, with the leading spheres both at 
Berlin and Rome. It could become the foundation of a most useful joint 
action, first, for the purpose of organising a vigilant supervision, and then 
also for an active joint struggle against the common foe of the Christian 
and monarchical order of Europe. As a first step in the said direction, 
and for the purpose of elucidating the main principles for a future programme 
of joint action, it seems to be desirable to confine ourselves for the present 
to a quite confidential exchange of views with the German Government. 

(Signed) Count Lamsdorf. 

Negotiations must be entered into immediately. \ 

I share entirely the opinions herein expressed. I Endorsement in the 
Tsakskoye Sao, \ Tsar ' s handwriting. 

January 3rd (O.S.) 1906. J 

(Translated from the Russian text in vol. vi. of " Secret Documents," 
published by the Soviet Commission of Foreign Affairs.) 


1 Supra, p. 56 (note). 

2 How these pogroms were organised by the Russian Secret Police will be 
found described from authentic documents in Semenoff : The Russian Government 
and the Massacres. 

3 This is not quite accurate. The object of the Committee was to assist the 
Self- Defence groups of Russian Jews in resisting the pogroms. No arms were 
exported to Russia, as the groups in question, and indeed the Russian Revolu- 
tionists themselves, found it quite easy to purchase arms from the Imperial 
Russian magazines. 

4 This also is quite untrue, as the published accounts of the Funds show. 

6 Freemasons will be able to judge of the accuracy of this statement. It will 
suffice to say here that it is as untrue as it is ludicrous. The same remark applies 
to the absurd reference to the Alliance Israelite. 

6 This is clearly a reference to the Bjoerkoo interview and shows that M. 
Izvolsky was in error when he stated that the Agreement resulting from the inter- 
view was disapproved by Count Lamsdorf. (See interview with M. Izvolsky in 
Le Temps, September 15, 1917.) 



Not all the diplomatic interventions on behalf of Jews have pro- 
ceeded on humanitarian grounds. Through the political assimila- 
tion of the Jews with the populations among whom they dwell, 
and more particularly through their emancipation in the various 
countries of Western Europe and America, they have acquired the 
same rights in foreign countries under International Law and treaties 
as their Christian fellow-citizens. Unfortunately this has not been 
universally recognised, and it has frequently happened that, when 
they travelled into countries where Jewish disabilities still lingered, 
they were held liable as Jews to ill-treatment from which their 
Christian fellow-countrymen were free. The question of the legality 
of this ill-treatment arose at an early date. 

In 1556, the Jews in the Papal States suffered a terrible per- 
secution at the hands of the fanatical Pope Paul IV. This cul- 
minated in the imprisonment of all the Marranos or Crypto Jews of 
Ancona, and their sentence to the stake. At that time the most 
influential Jews in Europe were the Mendes or Nasi Family of 
Portugal and the Low Countries, the head of which was the famous 
Donna Gracia Nasi. Her son-in-law, who afterwards became Duke 
of Naxos in the service of the Porte, for whom he conquered Cyprus, 
was the Rothschild as well as the Disraeli of his day. 54 The Italian 
Jews sent piteous appeals to Donna Gracia, who was then settled 
in Constantinople. She at once addressed herself to the reigning 
Sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, and entreated his intervention, 
on the ground that the Marrano Jews in Ancona were for the most 
part Turkish subjects. The appeal was well conceived, for the 

54 Levy : Don Joseph Nasi, Herzog von Naxos und seine Familie (Breslau, 
1859). Sec also Graetz : Geschichte, vol. ix. passim. 



Sultan was outraged by the idea that subjects of his could be mal- 
treated by a foreign potentate. He promptly responded (March 9, 
1556) by sending an ultimatum to the Pope, demanding the imme- 
diate release of his. unjustly accused lieges, under pain of reprisals 
on the foreign Christians within his own dominions. 55 The Turk in 
those days was not in the habit of treating Christian States with an 
excess of ceremony, and the Pope realised the wisdom of complying 
with the ultimatum. He revenged himself, however, by burning those 
of the prisoners who could not be shown to be Turkish subjects. 56 

This incident is of peculiar interest for its bearing on the still 
much debated question of the political status of Jews in the lands 
of their " Dispersion." The Turkish Jews in 1556 seem to have had 
no doubt that they were full nationals of the Ottoman Porte and 
as such entitled to the protection of the Turkish Sultan. The pre- 
cedent, however, was far from decisive. In other circumstances 
other views have prevailed. Thus in 1655, when the Commonwealth 
declared war on Spain, and an order was issued for the confisca- 
tion of the property of Spaniards in England, some of the Spanish 
Crypto Jews, then resident in London, appealed against the order 
on the ground that their national status was that of Jews and not 
that of Spaniards. This plea was allowed by the Admiralty Com- 
missioners, to whom it was referred, and they discharged the orders 
made against the appellants. 57 

The question slumbered for a century and a half, and when it 
reappeared the Turk was again on the side of the light. In 1815, 
there was a dispute on this subject between Austria and Turkey. 
At that time the Jews of Turkey were treated better than the Jews 
of Austria. Austria applied to Turkish Jews visiting her territories 

55 The text of the Sultan's letter is preserved in the rare Lettere di Princijri 
(Venice, 1581), iii. 171. 

6 « Graetz : Geschichte, ix. 361, and 571-572. 

67 Transactions, Jewish Historical Society, iv. 478 et seq. The plea has been 
revived during the present war, but with less success. It was largely used by 
Russian Jews in order to escape conscription under the Anglo-Russian Convention 
of 1916. (See Petition of Foreign Jews Protection Society, Herald, July 22 and 29, 
1916.) See also the case of the prosecution of Henry Samuel, Times, 
September 19, 1918. 


the disabilities imposed upon her own Jews. Turkey protested on 
the ground that, according to the treaties — mainly the Treaty of 
Carlowitz — in force between the two powers, Austria had no right 
to make any distinction between Turkish Jews -and other subjects 
of the Ottoman Porte. This contention was held to be valid by the 
Austrian Government, and the incident was terminated by the issue 
of an instruction to the police of Lower Austria, where the disabilities 
complained of were in force, ordering them to treat all Turkish 
subjects alike without distinction of race or creed. 

The Treaty of Carlowitz by which this case was governed left 
very little option to the Austrian Government, 58 inasmuch as the 
reciprocity for which it stipulated was not based, as in other treaties, 
on what is known as " National treatment," that is to say that the 
nationals of each contracting party visiting the territories of the other 
shall be treated on the same footing as the nationals of the territories 
they visit. The reason, no doubt, was that the racial and religious 
heterogeneity of both Empires, and the differential treatment to 
which it gave rise in their respective internal administrations, could 
not be recognised internationally without grave risk of friction and 
controversy. The lesson was not lost on other States, especially 
those which desired to maintain their differential treatment of Jews 
as against the doctrine of undenominational Nationality which was 
chiefly championed by France. The result was a strengthening of the 
" National treatment " clause of commercial treaties, and this, with the 
progress of religious liberty, led to a succession of fresh international 

For many years, curiously enough, the chief offender was the 
democratic Swiss Confederation, the Federal constitution of which 
was exclusively Christian, while the Cantonal legislation was in many 
cases frankly and even aggressively anti-Semitic. Until 1827 the 
Swiss Commercial Treaties contained no hint of religious differentiation, 
but in that year, availing themselves of the reactionary and clerical 
sympathies of the government of Charles X, the Federal Authorities 
negotiated a Treaty with France containing a " National treatment " 
clause, under which the powers of the separate Cantons to deal as 

«» Infra, p. 71. 


they pleased with Jews were, in efiect, reserved. But this was not 
all. Lest the clause should be misinterpreted, the French Minister 
at Berne was authorised to address a secret Note to the President 
of the Swiss Diet acknowledging that it implied the desired restriction, 
on " the Jewish subjects of the King." 59 The transaction was ob- 
viously one which could not stand the light of the Revolution of 1830, 
and when three years later the Government of the Canton of Basle 
applied the Treaty in all its rigour to French Jews, the Due de Broglie, 
then French Minister for Foreign Affairs, issued an Ordinance sus- 
pending the operation of the Treaty in regard to the offending Canton, 
and followed this up by severing diplomatic relations and by placing 
a military cordon on the frontier. 60 The King himself approved the 
action of his Minister in an energetic speech to a deputation of the 
Consistoire Israelite. However, in 1835 the Ordinance was withdrawn, 
and until 1850 the peace was more or less preserved by a tacit 
modus vivendi. 

The resistance of France was rendered difficult, partly by per- 
plexities of general politics, but more immediately by the fact that 
the question was a larger one than it had at first appeared. In 
February 1840 a French Jew had been refused a permis de sejour 
by the police of Dresden on the ground that Jews were not permitted 
to reside in the city. The case was precisely similar to that of Switzer- 
land, and M. Guizot, who was then Foreign Minister, hesitated to 
take up a strong attitude as he was afraid that the precedent might 
involve him in complications with other countries. 61 Nevertheless, 
French public opinion was aroused, and the Chamber, after a lively 
debate, called upon the Government to make suitable representations 
to Saxony. 62 In 1850 a Commercial Treaty between the United 
States and Switzerland was signed at Berne, but the American Senate, 
on the advice of the President, refused to ratify it because it dis- 

59 Brisac : Ce que les Israelites de la Suisse doivent a la France (Lausanne, 1916), 
pp. 9-13. Infra, pp. 71-72. 

«° Brisac : op. cit., pp. 14-15, 16-17. 

61 Jewish disabilities still existed in England, Germany, Austria, Russia, the 
Italian States, Spain and Portugal. 

•* May 28, 1841. A full report of the debate will be found in the Moniteur, 
May 29, 1841. 


criminated against non-Christians. 63 This was followed almost imme- 
diately by a revival of the anti-Semitic activity of the Basle police, 
chiefly at the expense of French Jews resident in the Canton. The 
French Government again protested energetically and insisted on the 
withdrawal of the police measures. The demand was sulkily com- 
plied with, the Cantonal Government reserving what they called 
"' the principle." 64 

In 1855 a new phase of the conflict was opened by the negotiation 
of two further Commercial Treaties with Switzerland — one by Great 
Britain and the other by the United States — in both of which the 
invidious reservations, substantially as in the French Treaty of 1827, 
were retained. 65 Some mystery attaches to the circumstances in 
which these treaties were signed and ratified, 66 but the probable 
explanation is that the Swiss negotiators promised in effect that there 
should be no discrimination. This conjecture is confirmed by the 
action of the Federal Assembly in the following year, in proposing 
a modification of the Constitution by which equal rights should be 
accorded to the Jews in all the Cantons. Unfortunately not all the 
Cantons agreed, 67 and in 1857 American public opinion became much 
excited at the discovery that in the Canton of Neufchatel American 
citizens of the Jewish faith could not be protected by American pass- 
ports. 68 From this time until 1861 the United States took the place 
of France as the champion of Religious Liberty in Switzerland, and was 
strongly supported by Great Britain. 69 Her efforts, however, were not 
successful, and it was still reserved for France to settle the question. 
The opportunity presented itself when in the early sixties, under 
the influence of Cobden and Chevalier, France denounced all her 

M Stroock : " Switzerland and American Jews," in Publications of the American 
Jewish Historical Society, xi. 7-8, 15. 

«* Brisac: op. cit., p. 27-33. 65 Infra, pp. 73-74. 

66 Stroock : op. cit, p. 15. 67 Brisac : op. cit, p. 37. 

• 8 Stroock: op. cit, pp. 24-32. 

'* Lord Clarendon on December 17, 1857, instructed the British Minister at 
Berne to make representations to the Swiss Government (Stroock : p. 30). 
The bulk of the official correspondence of the United States on the subject is 
printed by Cyrus Adler in Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 
xv. 25-39. 


Commercial Treaties. In negotiating the new Treaty with Swit- 
zerland she resolutely set her face against all discriminations, or 
possibilities of discrimination, between French citizens on the score 
of religion. The result was that she obtained in her new Treaty 
(June 30, 1864) a form of article without precedent in instruments 
of the kind. 70 In place of " National treatment," French citizens 
in Switzerland " without distinction of creed " were assured the 
same treatment as was accorded to " Christians." 71 This striking 
victory was speedily followed by the abolition of all Jewish disabilities 
throughout the Confederation. 72 

A series of more formidable cases of the same kind arose at a 
later period out of the disabilities imposed on Jews in Russia. The 
Powers mainly affected were the United States and Great Britain. 
Both had Treaties of Commerce with Russia, the American Treaty 
having been concluded in 1832 and the British in 1859. Both Treaties 
contained, in substantially the same form, articles guaranteeing 
reciprocal " National treatment " to the subjects of the High Con- 
tracting parties. There is, however, an extraordinary contrast in 
the interpretation of these Treaties by the British and American 
Governments respectively. 

The question first came up for consideration in 1862. Certain 
British Jews resident in Warsaw complained that the disabilities 
imposed upon native Jews were also imposed upon them, and they 
appealed to Her Majesty's Government for protection. Lord John 
Russell held that the articles of the Treaty of 1859, by which British 
subjects in Russia and Russian subjects in England were to be treated 
on an equal footing with the nationals of those countries, did not 
mean that British Jews in Russia should be treated as British 
subjects, but that they should only have equal treatment with their 
oppressed co-religionists. He accordingly declined to seek any relief 
for the petitioners. 73 The case gave rise to no controversy, not only 

70 Infra, p. 73. 

71 This was not in the Commercial Treaty but in a separate Treaty of Estab- 
lishment signed the same day. 

72 Sanctioned by the Referendum of January 14, 1866 (Brisac, p. 54). 

73 Pari. Paper, Russia, No. 4 (1881), p. 21. Infra, pp. 81-82. 


because the British and Russian Governments were at one in their 
interpretation of the Treaty, but because the facts were not made 
public at the time. It proved, however, a fatal and humiliating 
precedent. In 1880 a terrible era of persecution was inaugurated 
for the Jews of Russia, and it soon reacted on their foreign brethren 
visiting the country. Towards the end of the year a naturalised 
British Jew named Lewisohn was expelled from St. Petersburg because 
he was a Jew, and he invoked the protection of his Government. 
Lord Granville, who was then Foreign Secretary, was at first disposed 
to regard the expulsion as a violation of the Treaty, 7 * but later on he 
became acquainted with the precedent of 1862, and he declined to 
depart from it. 75 In 1890, at the instance of the Jewish Conjoint 
Committee, Lord Salisbury submitted the question to the Law Officers 
of the Crown, with the result that the precedent set by Lord John 
Russell was confirmed on its merits and not — as in the case of Lord 
Granville — qua precedent only. 78 The last occasion on which an 
effort was made to obtain a reversal of this decision was in 1912. 
The Conjoint Committee addressed to the Secretary of State, Sir 
Edward Grey, an elaborate Memorandum reviewing the history and 
legal aspects of the question. 77 The reply was in effect a reaffirma- 
tion of the previous decisions, but the grounds on which it was 
rested were different. Sir Edward Grey did not discuss the reason- 
ableness of the established interpretation, but he pleaded that 
any departure from it would only lead to the termination of 
the Treaty, and that this would serve neither British nor Jewish 
interests. 78 

The dispute with the United States pursued a very different 

7 * Pari. Paper, Russia, No. 3 (1881), pp. 17-18. 
75 Pari. Paper, Russia, No. 4 (1881), pp. 21-22. Infra, p. 82. 
7 * Letter from Sir T. H. Sanderson on behalf of the Marquis of Salisbury, 
January 29, 1891. 

77 " Memorandum on the grievances of British subjects of the Jewish faith in 
regard to the interpretation of Articles I and XI of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 
Commerce and Navigation of January 12, 1859 " (August 2, 1912). Printed for 
confidential use, 9 pp. fcp. The text together with further correspondence has 
been reprinted in the Annual Reports of the Board of Deputies and the Anglo- 
Jewish Association for 1912. 

78 Infra, pp. 82-83. 


course. In its earliest stages it was dealt with by minor diplomatic 
and consular officials very much in the spirit of Lord John Russell," 
but when in 1880 the Russian Government began to expel American 
Jews from St. Petersburg, the question was taken in hand by the 
Secretary of State as one of gravity. It was at once recognised that 
a religious discrimination between American citizens could not be 
tolerated in any American Treaty. This was quite apart from the 
question of the legal interpretation of the Treaty of 1832. 80 That 
question, however, was dealt with vigorously by Mr. Blaine in July 
1881. He took the broad view that the intention of the United 
States in 1832 was not, and could not have been, that which the 
Russian Government read into the Treaty, that the Russian inter- 
pretation was indefensible on moral grounds, and that on such ques- 
tions local law cannot be permitted to override the express terms of 
a Treaty. 81 On this basis the United States patiently sought a 
reversal of the Russian view, but without success. The fight lasted 
thirty years. Eventually American public opinion became agitated, 
an organised movement for the termination of the obnoxious treaty 
was set on foot, and in December 1911 the House of Representatives 
at Washington sent a strongly worded joint resolution to the Senate 
declaring that Russia had violated the Treaty and calling upon the 
President to denounce it. The Russian Ambassador in Washington 
expressed official disapproval of the resolution, but President Taft 
acted upon it without waiting for the Senate, and denounced the 
Treaty on December 15. Thereupon the Senate contented itself 
with a joint resolution approving the action of the President. 82 

The question of the status of Jews in foreign lands has also 
arisen in Palestine and Morocco. In 1882 the Turkish Government, 
fearing a Zionist propaganda, prohibited the settlement of foreign 
Jews in the Holy Land. The United States protested, and in 1887 
and 1888 similar action was taken by Great Britain and France. 

'* Cyrus Adler : Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, 
pp. 73-74. See also dispatch from Mr. Foster, October 18, 1880, in Foreign Rela- 
tions of the United State*, 1881, p. 991. 

80 See dispatches quoted by C. Adler, op. cit., pp.75-96 from Foreign Relations 
1880 and 1881. 

81 Infra, pp. 76-78. 82 Infra, pp. 79-80. 


In the following year the restriction was removed. 83 In the case of 
Morocco, Great Britain solved the question in advance by stipulat- 
ing in her Treaty with that country, negotiated in 1855, that her 
Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish subjects visiting and residing 
in Morocco should be treated on an equal footing. 84 


Art. XIV. — Treaty of Carlowitz between the Emperor and thi 
Grand Sultan, Jan. 26, 1699." 

XIV. Trade shall be free for the Subjects of both Partys, in all the 
Kingdoms and Dominions of both Empires, according to the anticnt sacred 
Capitulations. And that it may be carry'd on by both Partys with Profit 
and without Fraud and Deceit, the same shall be settled by Stipulations 
between Commissarys deputed on both sides, well vers'd in Merchandize, 
at the time of solemn Embassys on both sides, and as has been observ'd 
with other Nations in Friendship with the Sublime Empire, so his Imperial 
Majesty's subjects of what Nation soever, shall enjoy the Security and 
Advantage of Trade in the Kingdoms of the Sublime Empire, as well as 
the usual Privileges in a fitting manner. 

(" Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce," London, 1732, 
vol. iv. p. 298.) 

Interpretation by Austrian Government. Instructions to Police of 
Lower Austria, Dec. 28, 1 815. 

" All differences established between Turkish Jews and other subjects 
of the Ottoman Porte appear contrary to the spirit of the Treaties. These 
speak of ' Turkish subjects ' without making any exception. It is conse- 
quently to this quality only that one must have regard, and not in any case 
to the religion or profession of individuals." 

(Quoted by M. Carnot in Debate in French Chamber. Moniteur, May 29, 

Arts. I, III and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, May 30, 1827. 

Article premier. — Les Francais seront recus et traites, dans chaqu 
canton de la Conf6deration, relativement a leurs personnes et a leurs pro 

83 Cyrus Adler : op. cit., pp. 7-19. See also infra, p. 103 (note). 

81 Infra, p. 83. 

86 Confirmed by Art. XIII of the Treaty of Passarowitz, July 21, 1718. 


prietes, sur le meme pied et de la meme maniere que le sont ou pourront 
l'etre a l'avenir les ressortissants suisses des autres cantons. Tout genre 
d'industrie et de commerce permis aux ressortissants suisses des divers 
cantons le sera egalement aux Francais et sans qu'on puisse exiger d'eux 
aucune condition pecuniaire ou autre plus onereuse. Lorsqu'ils prendront 
domicile ou formeront un etablissement dans les cantons qui admettent 
les ressortissants de leurs co-etats, ils ne seront egalement astreints a aucune 
autre condition que ces derniers. 

Art. 3. — Les Suisses jouiront en Prance des memes droits et avantages 
que l'article premier assure aux Francais en Suisse, de telle sorte qu'a l'egard 
des cantons qui, sous les rapports specifies audit article premier, traiteront 
les Francais comme leurs propres ressortissants, ceux-ci seront, sous les 
memes rapports, traites en France comme les nationaux. Sa Majeste Tres 
Chretienne garantit aux autres cantons les memes droits et avantages dont 
ils feront jouir ses sujets. 

Art. 6. — Les Francais etablis en Suisse, de meme que les Suisses etablis 
en France en vertu du traite de 1803, continueront a jouir des droits qui 
leur etaient acquis. Toutes les dispositions de la presente convention leur 
seront d'ailleurs applicables. 

(Brisac : " Ce que les Israelites de la Suisse doivent a la France," pp. 

Interpretation by French Negotiator. Secret Note to the Stdss Diet, 
August 7, 1826. 

Le premier point qui a paru avoir besoin de quelques eclaircissements 
est relatif aux israelites sujets du roi, lesquels, en cette derniere qualite, 
pourraient se croire autorises a reclamer, dans tous les cantons suisses, le 
benefice de l'article 5 du projet de traite arrete entre la commission de la 
Diete et moi. Je ferai observer a cet egard que, cet article premier n'accor- 
dant aux Francais que les droits qui sont accordes par chaque canton Suisse 
aux ressortissants des autres cantons, il s'ensuit necessairement que, dans 
ceux des cantons ou le domicile et tout nouvel etablissement serait interdit, 
par les lois du canton souverain, aux individus de la religion de Moise, les 
sujets du roi qui professent cette religion ne sauraient se prevaloir de l'article 
en question pour reclamer une exception a la regie generate du canton Suisse. 
II est toutefois bien entendu que c'est une consequence directe de l'article 6 
du projet de traite, que ceux d'entre les israelites d'origine francaise qui se 
seraient etablis sur le territoire de la Confederation sous le regime de l'acte 
de mediation et en vertu du traite de 1803, continueront a jouir des droits 
qui leur etaient acquis. 

(Brisac : op. cit., pp. 12-13.) 


Interpretation by France (1835). Speech by King Louis Philippe to a 
Deputation from the Consistoire Israelite, November 5, 1835. 

Le roi a repondu : 

" Oui, dans tous les temps j'ai regarde comme injustes et impolitiques 
les mesures qui etablissaient entre les eitoyens d'une meme nation des 
differences de qualifications sociales fondees sur la diversite des croyances 
religieuses. Comme roi j'ai soutenu ce principe, et je vous ai deja temoigne 
plusieurs fois combien j'avais joui qu'il m'eut ete reserve de vous en faire 
1'application. J'espere qu'elle deviendra generate, je le desire beaucoup. 
Je crois que c'est dans l'interet bien entendu de tous les peuples, et la raison 
doit finir par Femporter sur les prejuges, comme l'eau qui tombe goutte 
a goutte finit par percer le plus dur rocher. Tels sont au moins mes desirs 
et mes esperances ; mais je ne puis me meler de ce qui se passe dans les autres 
Etats, a moins que les interets fran9ais n'en soient leses, ainsi que cela est 
arrive dans le canton de Bale campagne. J'avoue que j'ai ete bien aise 
d'avoir cette occasion de bien etablir que sous mon regne tous les Francais 
jouissent des memes droits et que tous obtiennent la meme protection de 
la part de mon gouvernement. J'espere que mes efforts ne seront pas 
infruetueux et que, dans l'affaire meme dont vous m'entretenez, le canton 
reviendra sur une determination aussi contraire a nos traites avec la Suisse 
qu'a l'esprit du siecle ou nous vivons. Pour moi, je suis heureux d'avoir 
donne l'exemple de votre complete emancipation, et je vous remercie de 
la justice que vous rendez a mes actes et a mes intentions ; je suis bien 
touche de ce que vous venez de m'exprimer." 

(Moniteur, Nov. 12, 1835.) 

Extract prom Franco-Swiss Treaty of Establishment, 
June 30, 1864. 

" Tous les Francais sans distinction de culte seront recus et traites 
a l'avenir dans chacun des Cantons suisses sur le meme pied que les ressor- 
tissants Chretiens des autres Cantons." 

(Brisac : op. cit., p. 53.) 

Art. I. Anglo-Swiss Treaty, September 6, 1855. 

Article I. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall be admitted 
to reside in each of the Swiss Cantons on the same conditions, and on the 
same footing, as citizens of the other Swiss Cantons. In the same manner, 
Swiss citizens shall be admitted to reside in all the territories of the United 


Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the same conditions, and on 
the same footing as British subjects. 

Consequently, the subjects and citizens of either of the two Contracting 
Parties shall, provided they conform to the laws of the country, be at liberty, 
with their families, to enter, establish themselves, reside, and remain in 
any part of the territories of the other. They may hire and occupy houses 
and warehouses for the purposes of residence and commerce, and may 
exercise, conformably to the laws of the country, any profession or business, 
or carry on trade in articles of lawful commerce by wholesale or retail, and 
may conduct such trade either in person or by any brokers or agents whom 
they may think fit to employ, provided such brokers or agents shall them- 
selves also fulfil the conditions necessary for being admitted to reside in 
the country. They shall not be subject to any taxes, charges or conditions 
in respect of residence, establishment, passports, licences to reside, establish 
themselves, or to trade, in respect of permission to exercise their profession, 
business, trade, or occupation, greater or more onerous than those which are 
or may be imposed upon the subjects or citizens of the country in which they 
reside ; and they shall, in all these respects, enjoy every right, privilege, 
and exemption which is or may be accorded to subjects or citizens of the 
country, or to subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation. 

(Bernhardt, " Handbook of Treaties, &c., relating to Commerce," 
Lond. 1908, pp. 915-916.) 

Art. I. American-Swiss Treaty, November 6, 1855. 

Art. I. " The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens 
of Switzerland shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of reciprocal 
equality in the two countries, where such admission and treatment shall 
not conflict with the constitutional or legal provisions, as well Federal as 
State and Cantonal, of the contracting parties. 

(Pub. Amer. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. xi. p. 15.) 

Interpretation by the United States, 1857. Letter from the Assistant Secretary 
of State to the Jews of Baltimore. 

August 13, 1857. 

In compliance with your request, I enclose herewith a copy of the 
treaty between the United States and Switzerland which was proclaimed 
in 1855. It was originally concluded in 1850, but was amended with a 
view to avoid some objections which were made on the very subject to 
which you refer. In its present form, although it may not remove some 


difficulties with reference to those who profess the Israelitish faith, yet 
I do not see that it discriminates against this class of our citizens in any 
mode whatever. Undoubtedly in some portions of the Confederation the 
local laws are less liberal to Israelites than to others, and this is deeply to 
be regretted ; but the Government of the United States has no control 
over the legislation of a foreign State and can only employ its influence and 
good offices to relieve the difficulties which such legislation may impose 
in any given case. 

John Appleton. 

(Ibid., p. 23.) 

Action by the United States, 1861. Instruction to Mr. Fogg, Minister to 


September 14, 1861. 

Sir, — Among the important instructions addressed to your predecessor 
are those concerning the restrictions of certain of the Swiss Cantons against 
citizens of the United States professing Judaism — a subject which received 
at Mr. Fay's hands a large share of earnest attention and upon which he 
addressed the department repeatedly and at much length. It is very 
desirable that his efforts to procure the removal of the restrictions referred 
to, which, though not completely successful, have no doubt had much 
effect in smoothing the way to such a result, should be followed up by you. 
You will therefore, after having fully acquainted yourself with what Mr. 
Fay has done in the premises and with the views of the department 
as expressed to him in the despatches on file in the Legation, take such 
steps as you may deem judicious and legal to advance the benevolent 
object in question. It is not doubted that further proper appeals to the 
justice and liberality of the authorities of the several Cantons whose laws 
discriminate against Israelitish citizens of the United States, will result 
in a removal of the odious restrictions and a recognition of the just rights 
of those citizens. 

William H. Sewaed, 

Secretary of State. 

(Ibid., pp. 47-48.) 

Art. I. Russo-American Treaty, December 18, 1832. 

Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting 
parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. 

The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty 


to enter the ports, places and rivers of each party wherever foreign com- 
merce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all 
parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs ; and 
they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives 
of the country wherein they reside, on condition of submitting to the laws 
and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force 
concerning commerce. 

(" Brit, and For. State Papers," vol. xx. p. 267.) 

Interpretation by United States, 1881. Dispatch of Secretary of State to the 
American Minister in St. Petersburg. 

Department of State, Washington, 

July 29, 1881. 

Sir, — •. . . The case would clearly be one in which the obligation of 
a treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions 
of the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among 
the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it 
is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for 
aliens in express terms it cannot be limited by the operations of domestic 
law without a serious breach of the good faith which governs the intercourse 
of nations. So long as such a conventional engagement in favor of the 
citizens in another State exists, the law governing natives in like cases is 
manifestly inapplicable. 

I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United 
States concludes its treaties with foreign States for the equal protection 
of all classes of American citizens. It can make absolutely no discrimination 
between them, whatever be their origin or creed. So that they abide by 
the laws at home or abroad it must give them due protection and expect 
like protection for them. Any unfriendly or discriminatory act against 
them on the part of a foreign power with which we are at peace would call 
for our earnest remonstrance, whether a treaty existed or not. The friend- 
liness of our relations with foreign nations is emphasized by the treaties 
we have concluded with them. We have been moved to enter into such 
international compacts by considerations of mutual benefit and reciprocity, 
by the same considerations, in short, which have animated the Russian 
Government from the time of the noble and tolerant declarations of the 
Empress Catherine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked 
to the spirit rather than to the letter of those engagements, and believed that 
they should be interpreted in the broadest way ; and it is therefore a source 


of unfeigned regret to us when a Government, to which we are allied by so 
many historical ties as to that of Russia, shows a disposition in its dealings 
with us to take advantage of technicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and 
not the reciprocal motive of its international engagements in justification 
of the expulsion from its territories of peaceable American citizens resorting 
thither under the good faith of treaties and accused of no wrong-doing or 
of no viola ion of the commercial code of the land, but of the simple 
adherence to the faith of their fathers. . . . 

I can readily conceive that statutes bristling with difficulties 
remain unrepealed in the volumes of the law of Russia as well as of other 
nations. Even we ourselves have our obsolete " blue laws," and their 
literal enforcement, if such a thing were possible, might to-day subject a 
Russian of freethinking proclivities, in Maryland or Delaware, to the 
penalty of having his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron for 
blasphemy. Happily the spirit of progress is of higher authority than 
the letter of outworn laws, and statutory enactments are not so inelastic 
but that they relax and change with the general advancement of peoples in 
the path of t Jerance. 

The simple fact that thousands of Israelites to-day pursue their callings 
unmolested in St. Petersburg, under the shadow of ancient proscriptive 
laws, is in itself an eloquent testimony to the principle of progress. And so, 
too, in Spain, where the persecution and expulsion of the Jews is one of the 
most notable and deplorable facts in history, and where the edicts of the 
earlier sovereigns remain unrepealed, we see to-day an offer of protection 
and assured right of domicile made to Israelites of every race. . . . 

I had the honor in my letter of the 20th ultimo to Mr. Bartholorney 
to acquaint him with the general views of the President in relation to this 

I cannot better bring this instruction to a close than by repeating 
and amplifying those views which the President so firmly holds, and which 
he so anxiously desires to have recognized and responded to by the Russian 

He conceives that the intention of the United States in negotiating 
the treaty of December 18, 1832, and the distinct and enlightened reciprocal 
engagements then entered into with the Government of Russia, give us 
moral ground to expect careful attention to our opinions as to its rational 
interpretation in the broadest and most impartial sense ; that he would 
deeply regret, in view of the gratifying friendliness of the relations of the 
two countries which he is so desirous to maintain, to find that this large 
national sentiment fails to control the present issue, or that a narrow 
and rigid limitation of the construction possible to the treaty stipulation 
between the two countries is likely to be adhered to ; that if, after a frank 


comparison of the views of the two Governments, in the most amicable 
spirit and with the most earnest desire to reach a mutually agreeable con- 
clusion, the treaty stipulations between the United States and Russia are 
found insufficient to determine questions of nationality and tolerance of 
individual faith, or to secure to American citizens in Russia the treatment 
which Russians receive in the United States, it is simply due to the good 
relations of the two countries that the stipulations should be made sufficient 
in these regards ; and we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will 
which Russia professes toward us than a frank declaration of her readiness 
to come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an earnest and 
generous spirit. 

I have observed that in your conferences on this subject heretofore 
with the minister of foreign affairs, as reported in your dispatches, you have 
on some occasions given discreet expression to the feelings of sympathy 
and gratification with which this Government and people regard any steps 
taken in foreign countries in the direction of a liberal tolerance analogous 
to that which forms the fundamental principle of our national existence. 
Such expressions were natural on your part and reflected a sentiment which 
wo all feel. But in making the President's views known to the minister 
I desire that you will carefully subordinate such sentiments to the simple 
consideration of what is conscientiously believed to be due to our citizens 
in foreign lands. You will distinctly impress upon him that, regardful 
of the sovereignty of Russia, we do not submit any suggestions touching 
the laws and customs of the Empire except where those laws and customs 
conflict with and destroy the rights of American citizens as assured by 
treaty obligations. 

You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with 
Russia nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall dis- 
criminate against any class of American citizens on account of their religious 

I cannot but feel assured that this earnest presentation of the views 
of this Government will accord with the sense of justice and equity of that 
of Russia and that the questions at issue will soon find their natural solution 
in harmony with the noble spirit of tolerance which pervaded the ukase 
of the Empress Catherine a century ago, and with the statesmanlike 
declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the late decree of the 
Czar Alexander II in 1860. 

You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and 
should he desire a copy you will give it to him. 

James G. Blaine. 

(" For. Relat, of the U.S.," 1881, pp. 1030 et seq.) 


Denunciation by United States, 1911. 

Resolution of the House of Representatives, December 13, 1911. 

Resolved, etc., That the people of the United States assert as a funda- 
mental principle that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home 
or abroad because of race or religion ; that the Government of the United 
States concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its 
citizens, without regard to race or religion ; that the Government of the 
United States will not be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or 
which by one of the parties thereto is so construed as to discriminate, 
between American citizens on the ground of race or religion ; that the 
Government of Russia has violated the treaty between the United States 
and Russia, concluded at St. Petersburg, December 18, 1832, refusing to 
honor American passports duly issued to American citizens, on account 
of race and religion ; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, 
for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible 
time ; that for the aforesaid reasons the said treaty is hereby declared to 
be terminated and of no further force and effect from the expiration of one 
year after the date of notification to the Government of Russia of the terms 
of this resolution, and that to this end the President is hereby charged 
with the duty of communicating such notice to the Government of Russia. 

"Congressional Record," xlviii. 280, 304-305.) 

Resolution of the Senate, December 20, 1911. 

Whereas the treaty of commerce and navigation between the United 
States and Russia concluded on the 18th day of December, 1832, provides 
in Article XII thereof that it " shall continue in force until the first day 
of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
nine, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting parties 
shall not have announced to the other by an official notification its in- 
tention to arrest the operation thereof this treaty shall remain obligatory 
one year beyond that day, and so on until the expiration of the year which 
shall commence after the date of a similar notification " ; and 

Whereas on the 17th day of December, 1911, the President caused to 
be delivered to the Imperial Russian Government by the American 
Ambassador at St. Petersburg an official notification on behalf of the 
Government of the United States announcing intention to terminate the 
operation of this treaty upon the expiration of the year commencing on 
the 1st day of January 1912 ; and 


Whereas said treaty is no longer responsive in various respects to the 
political principles and commercial needs of the two countries ; and 

Whereas the constructions placed thereon by the respective contracting 
parties differ upon matters of fundamental importance and interest to 
each ; Therefore be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the notice thus given by 
the President of the United States to the Government of the Empire of 
Russia to terminate said treaty in accordance with the terms of the Treaty 
is hereby adopted and ratified. 

(Ibid., pp. 493-522.) 

Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, Jan-wary 12, 1859. 

Article I. There shall be between all the dominions and possessions 
of the two High Contracting Parties, reciprocal freedom of commerce and 
navigation. The subjects of each of the two Contracting Parties, re- 
spectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come, with their ships 
and cargoes, to all places, ports and rivers in the dominions and possessions of 
the other, to which other foreigners are or may be permitted to come ; and 
shall, throughout the whole extent of the dominions and possessions of the 
other, enjoy the same rights, privileges, liberties, favours, immunities and 
exemptions in matters of commerce and navigation, which are or may be 
enjoyed by native subjects generally. 

It is understood, however, that the preceding stipulations in no wise 
affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, 
indust y, and police, in vigour in each of the two countries, and generally 
applicable to all foreigners. 

Article XI. The subjects of either of the two High Contracting Parties, 
conforming themselves to the laws of the country, shall have : — 

1. Full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any 
part of the dominions and possessions of the other Contracting Party. 

2. They shall be permitted, in the towns and ports, to hire or possess the 
houses, warehouses, shops and premises, which may be necessary for them. 

3. They may carry on their commerce, either in person or by any agents 
whom they may think fit to employ. 

4. They shall not be subject, in respect of their persons or property, 
or in respect of passports, licences for residence or establishment, nor in 
respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or 
local, nor to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever, other or greater 
than those which are or may be imposed upon native subjects. 

(Bernhardt : op. cit., pp. 721, 724-725.) 


Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881. Despatch from Lord Granville 
to H.B.M. Ambassador at St. Petersburg. 

Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton. 

Fokeign Office. 

December 28th, 1881. 

Sir, — In my preceding despatch of to-day I have discussed the question 
whether Mr. Lewisohn, in the arbitrary expulsion from Russia to which 
he was subjected in September of last year, was treated in accordance with 
the Russian law as applied to foreign Jews. It now remains to be considered 
whether Her Majesty's Government are entitled to claim for a British subject 
of the Jewish faith immunity from the operation of these laws, under the 
Treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1859. 

It will be seen that Article I of that Treaty secures to foreigners the 
same rights as are enjoyed by native subjects generally, but the stipulations of 
that Article are not to affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations re- 
garding commerce, industry and police in vigour in each of the two countries, 
and applicable to foreigners generally ; and again, by Article XI, they are 
not to be subjected to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever other 
and greater than those which are or may be imposed on native subjects. 

The Treaty is no doubt open to two possible constructions : the one, 
that it only assures to British subjects of any particular creed the same 
privileges as are enjoyed by Russian subjects of the same creed ; the other 
that the privileges accorded to British subjects are accorded to all alike, 
without regard to the religious body to which they belong. 

If the latter construction be adopted, British Jews in Russia would 
be entitled to be relieved from the disabilities to which native Jews are 
liable, but such a construction would also involve the supposition that 
Russia had agreed to create a state of things inconsistent with the traditions 
of her Government, which could not fail to be a source of embanassment 
to her. 

Upon an examination of the archives of this Department, it has been found 
that the position of the Jews in Russia formed the subject of a complaint from 
certain British subjects of that religion at Warsaw in 1862, and that Her 
Majesty's Government then came to the conclusion that they would not be 
justified in claiming exemption for British Jews in Russia froni disabilities 
to which their Russian co-religionists were liable by law. 

On that occasion Earl Russell informed Lord Napier, then Her Majesty's 
Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, that the effect of the 1st and 11th Articles 
of the Treaty was to place British subjects on the footing of Russian subjects 
before the law, each class being alike, and one not more than the other amen- 



able to all general laws applicable in like cases ; that as Russian subjects, 
being Jews, incurred certain disabilities, the equality intended and provided 
for by the Treaty was not infringed by British subjects who were Jews and 
resident in Russia sharing the same disabilities. The despatch went on to 
say that it would seem to be beyond the scope and general intent of a Treaty 
■of Commerce and Navigation if it were to be held to repeal in the persons of 
foreigners the legal disabilities to which, for reasons of general State policy, 
particular classes of individual natives of the country had been subjected, 
and it was hardly to be supposed that such an interpretation would be accepted 
or adopted by an independent Government as against itself. 

Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot now insist upon a con- 
struction of the Treaty at variance with that which was placed upon it in 

I am, &c, 
(" Pari. Paper, Russia," No. 4 (1881), p. 21.) 

Interpretation by Great Britain, 1891. Letter from the Marquis of Salisbury 
to Sir Julian Goldsmid. 

Foreign Office, 

January 29th, 1891. 

Sir, — With reference to the letter from this office of the 16th ultimo and 
to previous correspondence respecting the position of British Jews in Russia, 
I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to inform you that the question has 
been fully considered in communication with the Law Officers of the Crown. 
Her Majesty's Government are advised that, so long as the disabilities to 
which British and Russian Jews are subjected are substantially the same, it 
is not open to Her Majesty's Government to depart from the interpretation of 
Treaties laid down in Lord Granville's despatch of December 28, 1881. 

You will find a copy of this despatch on page 21 of the Parliamentary 
Paper " Russia No. 4, 1881." 

I am, Sir, 
Your most obedient, humble Servant, 

T. H. Sanderson. 
Sir J. Goldsmid, Bart., M.P. 

Interpretation by Great Britain, 1912. Letter from Sir Edward, Grey to the 
Conjoint Committee, 

Foreign Office, 
October 1st, 1912. 

Gentlemen, — Secretary Sir E. Grey has had under his careful considera- 
tion your Memorial of August 2nd last on the subject of the grievances caused 


by the restrictions imposed in Russia on British subjects of the Jewish faith in 
regard to the interpretation of Articles I and XI of the Treaty of Commerce 
between this country and Russia of January 12th, 1859. 

I am to inform you that, inasmuch as the construction which should be 
placed on the Articles of the Treaty was carefully considered by His Majesty's 
Government in 1862, and again in 1881, His Majesty's Government would not 
now be able to reverse the decision then arrived at, and that an attempt to do 
so, or to interpret and utilise the Treaty in a sense contrary to the spirit of 
that decision, would only lead to its termination by formal notice as provided 
for by the Treaty at the end of twelve months. Such result would in no way 
advance the interests of those whom you represent, and would in other respects 
be disadvantageous to British interests. Sir E. Grey, therefore, regrets that 
he is unable to approach the Russian Government in the sense desired. 

I am, Gentlemen, 
Your most obedient humble Servant, 

Eyre A. Crowe. 
The Conjoint Jewish Committee, 
19 Finsbury Circus, E.C. 

("Annual Report, Board of Deputies, 1912," pp. 81-82.) 

Art. XIII. Anglo-Moorish Treaty, December 9, 1856. 

Article XIII. All British subjects, whether Mahometans, Jews, or 
Christians, shall alike enjoy all the rights and privileges granted by the present 
Treaty and the Convention of Commerce and Navigation which has also been 
concluded this day, or which shall at any time be granted to the most favoured 

(Bernhardt : op. cit., p. 561.) 


Besides natural born and naturalised Jewish subjects of inter- 
vening States, there is another class of Jews on whose behalf protective 
interventions have been exercised on grounds of right. These are 
native Jews who for one reason or another have acquired Consular 
Protection under the Capitulations and other exterritorial privileges 
enjoyed by foreign States in Oriental and semi-barbarous countries. 
The origin of this protection has already been briefly described. 88 

*• Supra, pp. 3-4. 


The exact national status of the persons on whom it is con- 
ferred is not easy to define, but in the Foreign Jurisdiction 
Orders in Council they are assimilated with " British subjects " 
so far as British exterritorial jurisdiction is concerned, 87 and 
this roughly has been the practice of all States exercising Consular 

The system lent itself easily to abuse and fraud, chiefly because 
exterritoriality in the countries in which it was exercised generally 
carried with it immunity not only from arbitrary exactions but also 
from ordinary taxation. Moreover, in the case of native Jews who 
often suffered from Moslem fanaticism — chiefly in Morocco and 
Persia — Consular Protection was exercised from motives of humanity, 
and for that purpose more or less fictitious qualifications were 
found for them. We get a curious glimpse of the loose way in which 
Consular Protection was granted from the Anglo-Turkish Treaty 
of 1809. Under the Capitulations (Arts. LIX and LX) native 
interpreters and servants of the Embassy were free of taxes and 
indeed of Turkish jurisdiction generally. By the Treaty of 1809 
(Art. IX) it was agreed that in future the berats of inter- 
preters should not issue to " artizans, shopkeepers, bankers and 
other persons not acting as interpreters." 8S Owing to this stipula- 
tion and the sensitiveness of the Porte in regard to its jurisdiction 
over its own subjects, irregular Protections were discontinued in 
Turkey. This, however, was not a source of serious grievance to 
Jews, as on the whole they have been extremely well treated in the 
Ottoman Empire. 

It is not generally known — and the fact may prove of peculiar 
importance at the present moment — that all Russian Jews settled 
in Palestine are, on certain conditions, entitled to claim British pro- 
tection and so much of the status of British subjects as this privilege 
implies. In 1849, when there was a considerable influx of Russian 
Jews into Jerusalem, the Russian Government, having no Consul in 
the city and for other reasons, desired to get rid of the responsibility 
of protecting them. Accordingly an arrangement was arrived at 

87 Piggott : Exterritoriality (Lond. 1907), pp. 67-68. 

88 Bernhardt : op. oil., pp. 947, 957. 


between the British and Eussian authorities permitting such Jews, 
on receiving papers of dismissal from their Russian allegiance from 
the Vice-Consul at JaSa, to register at the British Consulate as 
British proteges. A large number availed themselves of the privilege. 
There is nothing to show that the Agreement of 1849 was ever 
cancelled. 89 

In Morocco the Consular Protection System affected Jews more 
closely than in Turkey. It was for many years their sole protection 
against the oppressions of the Bashaws and the cruel fanaticism of 
the people, and on this ground there was much to be said for its so- 
called abuses and irregularities. The right of protection seems to 
have been derived from a very loosely worded article of the Anglo- 
Moorish Treaty of 1728, granting immunity from taxation to all the 
native servants of British subjects, whether Moors or Jews. 90 This 
Treaty was abrogated by the general Treaty of 1856 (Article 
XXXVIII) and a more definite scope was given to British Consular 
jurisdiction (Article III), but in a Treaty of Commerce signed on the 
same day, it was expressly stipulated (Article IV) that native agents 
employed by British subjects " shall be treated and regarded as 
other subjects of the Moorish dominions." 91 Nevertheless, the old 
abuses continued in virtue of the " Most favoured nation " clause, 92 
and a very large number of native Jews received protection at the 
hands of the Consuls of all the Powers, partly on account of their 
usefulness and partly on account of the insecurity of their lives and 
property under the Moorish authorities. 

It was, however, difficult to restrain Moorish fanaticism, 
and the Consuls were frequently called upon to protect their 
Jewish proteges or to avenge outrages of which they became 
victims. 93 

89 Infra, p. 86. Further details will be found in Mr. Finn's Records from 
Jerusalem Consular Chronicles (Lond. 1878), i. 112-114. 

90 Infra, p. 87. 91 Infra, p. 87. 

92 Memoir of Sir John Drummond Hay (Lond. 1896), pp. 322-323. See also 
stipulations of French Treaty (infra, p. 88). 

93 For details of these cases see Leven : Cinquante Ans d'Hisloire, pp. 158 
el seq. Annual Reports of the Anglo-Jewish Association. 



Protection op Russian Jews in Palestine. — The Agreement op 1849. 

Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies. 

Foreign Office, 

February 1st, 1864. 

Sir, — I am directed by Earl Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your 
two letters of the 29th of December and 22nd inst., in the former of which you 
enclose a Memorial to His Lordship from the Jews of Safed and Tiberias, 
praying that they may again be placed under British protection, of which 
they assert that they were deprived by Mr. Consul Finn under the circum- 
stances stated by them. 

I am now to state to you in reply for the information of the Memorialists 
that Her Majesty's Government have every disposition to give effect to the 
arrangements which were made with the Russian Consul General in 1849, 
namely to afford British protection to those Jews who, having declined to 
return to Russia, have divested themselves of their Russian Nationality, 
and so forfeited the protection to which prima facie they were entitled to look. 
But I am to add that it must be distinctly understood that this can only be 
done by the production on the part of the individual seeking British protection 
of the formal letter of Dismissal from the Russian Consulate, shewing that he 
has been cast off from Russian protection, and would thus be left otherwise 
unprotected. If he can produce no such letter, Her Majesty's Consular 
Officers will not be entitled to grant to such individual British protection. 

Mr. Finn acted erroneously in originally supposing that British protection 
could be granted to Russian Jews without the production of formal letters of 
dismissal, and it was in consequence of instructions from Her Majesty's 
Government that he withdrew British Consular protection from those persons 
who could not produce such letters. Lord Russell, however, is of opinion that 
Mr. Finn has shewn satisfactorily that his good offices have nevertheless 
not unfrequently been extended to the Jewish Communities at Safed and 
Tiberias, and that they have no just reason to complain of him. 

A delay has been occasioned in answering your first letter by the necessity 
of communicating with Mr. Finn and of making other inquiries with regard 
to the statements contained in the Memorial. 

I am, Sir, 
Your most obedient humble Servant, 
I. Hammond. 
J. M. Montefiore, Esq., 

4 Gt. Stanhope St., Mayfair. 

(Minute Books of Board of Deputies, 1864.) 


Art. III. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of January 14, 1727-8. 

III. That the Menial Servants of his Britannic Majesty's Subjects, the 
Natives of the Country, either Moors or Jews, be exempt from Taxes of all 

(" A General Collection of Treaties " (1732), iv. 458.) 

Art. III. Anglo-Moorish General Treaty of December 9, 1856. 


Article III. . . . The British Charge d'Afiaires shall be at liberty to 
choose his own interpreters and servants, either from the Mussulmans or 
others, and neither his interpreters nor servants shall be compelled to pay 
any capitation tax, forced contribution, or other similar or corresponding 
charge. With respect to the Consuls or Vice-Consuls who shall reside at the 
ports under the orders of the said Charge d' Affaires, they shall be at liberty 
to choose one interpreter, one guard, and two servants, either from the Mus- 
sulmans or others ; and neither the interpreter, nor the guard, nor their 
servants, shall be compelled to pay any capitation tax, forced contribution, 
or other similar or corresponding charge. If the said Charge d'Affaires should 
appoint a subject of the Sultan of Morocco as Vice-Consul at a Moorish port, 
the said Vice-Consul, and those members of his family who may dwell within 
his house, shall be respected, and exempted from the payment of any capitation 
tax, or other similar or corresponding charge ; but the said Vice-Consul shall 
not take under his protection any subject of the Sultan of Morocco except 
the members of his family dwelling under his roof. 

(Bernhardt : op. cit., p. 556.) 

Art. IV. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of Commerce of December 9, 1856. 


Article IV. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty within the dominions 
of His Majesty the Sultan shall be free to manage their own affairs themselves, 
or to commit those affairs to the management of any persons whom they may 
appoint as their broker, factor or agent ; nor shall such British subjects be 
restrained in their choice of persons to act in such capacities ; nor shall they 
be called upon to pay any salary or remuneration to any person whom they 
shall not choose to employ ; but those persons who shall be thus employed, 
and who are subjects of the Sultan of Morocco, shall be treated and regarded 
as other subjects of the Moorish dominions. 

(Ibid. p. 573.) 


Franco-Moorish "Reglement " regarding Protection, August 19, 1863. 


La protection est individuelle et temporaire. 

Elle ne s'applique pas en general aux parents de l'individu protege. 

Elle ne peut s'appliquer a sa famille, c'est-a-dire a la femme et aux 
enfants demeurant sous le meme toit. 

Elle est tout au plus viagere, jamais hereditaire, sauf la seule exception 
admise en faveur do la famille Benehimol, qui, de pere en fils, a fourni et 
fournit des censaux interpretes au port de Tanger. 

Les proteges se divisent en deux categories : 

La premiere categorie comprend les indigenes employes par la Legation 
et par les differentes Autorites consulaires. 

La seconde categorie se compose des faeteurs, courtiers ou agents 
indigenes employes par les negociants francais pour leurs affaires de 
commerce. . . . 

Le nombre des courtiers indigenes jouissant de la protection francaise 
est limite a deux par maison de commerce. Par exception, les maisons 
de commerce qui ont des comptoirs dans differents ports pourront avoir 
des courtiers attaches a chacun de ces comptoirs et jouissant a ce titre de 
la protection francaise. . . . 

II est entendu, que les cultivateurs, gardiens de troupeaux ou autres 
paysans indigenes au service des Francais ne pourront etre l'objet de pour- 
suites judiciaires sans que l'Autorite consulaire competente en soit imme- 
diatement informee, arm que celle-ci puisse sauvegarder l'interet de ses 
nationaux. . . . 
(De Card : " Les Traites entre la France et le Maroc " (Paris, 1898), pp. 221-22.) 


Through the efforts of the British Minister at Tangier, Sir John 
Drummond Hay, who had negotiated the Treaties of 1856 and who 
was strongly opposed to the abuses of the Protection system, a Con- 
ference of the Powers and other interested States was held at Madrid 
in 1880 with the object of introducing reforms. 84 A new Convention, 
containing a few fresh restrictions, was agreed upon, but, as a matter 
of fact, the Conference was a failure, owing to the reluctance of 
France to abandon a system which gave her an advantage against 
Great Britain in promoting her influence in Morocco. 95 For obvious 

91 Memoir of Sir J. D. Hay, pp. 321-323. B5 Ibid. p. 323. 


reasons, Jewish influence was also largely used to the same end. The 
Jewish factor of the problem came out very prominently in the debates 
of the Conference. All the proteges referred to by name were Jews, 
such as the families of Benchimol, Moses Nahon, David Buzaglo, 
and Isaac Toledano. 96 One of the few reforms carried out by the 
Conference was the abolition of hereditary protection. An exception 
was, however, made in the case of the Jewish family of Benchimol, 
whose rights in this respect had been guaranteed in the Convention 
of 1863 with France, and a special reservation to this effect 
was inserted in the new Treaty. 9 ' 

The Conference also dealt with the general questions of Eeligious 
Liberty in Morocco and of the treatment of native Jews. In 1864 
Sir Moses Montefiore, as President of the Jewish Board of Deputies 
and with the support of the British Government, had undertaken a 
mission to Morocco in order to secure an improvement in the treatment 
of the non-Mohammedan population, and more particularly the Jews. 
He succeeded in obtaining from the Sultan a remarkable Edict assuring 
to the Jews a perfect equality of treatment with all the other subjects 
of the Sultan. 98 This Edict had not been observed, and, at the 
instance of the Pope, the Madrid Conference adopted a Declaration 
calling upon the Shereefian Government to give effect to it and at 
the same time to assure Religious Liberty to all its subjects. The 
result was to extract from the Sultan a formal reaffirmation of the 
Montefiore Edict. 99 

A similar course was pursued by the Conference which met at 
Algeciras in 1906 to consider the Moorish question in its wider political 
aspects. The intervening quarter of a century had been as barren 
of reforms as the period which elapsed between the granting of the 
Edict of 1864 and the meeting of the Madrid Conference. The mal- 
treatment of the Jews had continued, and had been the subject 
of frequent complaints by the Alliance Israelite, the Anglo-Jewish 
Association, and the American Jewish Committee, and of remon- 

96 Inffl, pp. 90-91. " Infra, p. 93. 

98 Infra, p. 92. See also Wolf : Sir Moses Montefiore (Lond. 1884), pp. 213- 
232, and Loewe : Diaries of Sir M. Montefiore, ii. 148-153. 
*' Infra, p. 97. 


strances by their respective Governments. Accordingly at the instance 
of the United States Government, the question was brought before 
the Algeciras Conference, and, at the sitting of that body on April 2, 
1906, a resolution was adopted, again calling upon the Sultan of 
Morocco to see " that the Jews of his Empire and all his subjects? 
without distinction of faith, were treated with justice and equality." 10 ° 
No steps, however, were taken to enforce this resolution, and 
it was not even made a treaty obligation. That, however, was of 
little consequence, for, very shortly after, the Moorish Empire virtu- 
ally disappeared, and a French Protectorate was proclaimed. The 
Jews of Morocco are now in the same situation as their brethren in 
Algiers and Tunis, which, however, is not to say that it is entirely- 


Extracts from Protocols of the Madrid Conference (1880). 

Protocole No. 3.— Seance du 20 Mai, 1880. 

Sur la question de la protection her^ditaire, le P16nipotentiaire de France- 
rappelle que la Convention de 1863 aceorde formellement cette protection 
a la famille Benchimol. Les raisons qui ont motive cette exception ont 
ete dument appreciees a cette epoque par le Gouvernement Marocain ; elles 
ont conserve toute leur force, et il est impossible au Gouvernement Francais 
d'abandonner une famille qui jouit depuis 17 ans de la plus juste considera- 
tion. II demande le maintien de cette exception si legitime. 

Le Plenipotentiaire du Portugal, tout en maintenant dans toute son 
6tendue le droit au traitement de la nation la plus favoris6e, reconnu tou- 
jours au Portugal et recemment encore lors des Ambassades speciales envoyees 
par sa Majesty Cherifienne en 1875 et 1877, admet que la France puisse 
alleguer des motifs speciaux en faveur d'une exception qui, selon lui, n'in- 
valide pas le principe. II accepte done sans reserve que la protection ne 
soit pas h6reditaire, avec l'exception unique etabli nominativement dans 
la Convention de 1863. Seulement pour le cas oil le Gouvernement Marocain. 
accorderait par la suite d'autres exceptions de cette nature, il reserverait 
le droit du Gouvernement Portugais de r6clamer une exception analogue. 

Pareille reserve est faite par les autres Plenipotentiaires. 

" La protection n'est point hereditaire. Une seule exception est 
maintenue en faveur de la famille Benchimol, comme etant 6tablie dans la 

100 Infra, p. 98. 


Convention de 1863 ; mais elle ne saurait creer un precedent. Cependant 
si le Souverain du Maroc accordait une autre exception, toutes les Puissances 
representees a la Conference auraient le droit de reclamer une exception 

Protocole No. 11. — Seance du 24 Juin, 1880. 

Le Plenipotentiaire d'ltalie demande la parole, et s'exprime en ces 
termes : — 

" . . . . L'ltalie a toujours maintenu inalterable son droit consue- 
tudinaire sans jamais en abuser. En effet, en examinant le cbiffre de 108, 
auquel montent ses proteges, on trouvera que 11 seulement sont proteges 
en vertu du droit consuetudinaire. 

" Six sont d'anciens Vice-Consuls et interpretes des Etats Italiens 
composant actuellement le Royaume d'ltalie. Le nombre de ceux qui 
ont rendu ainsi des services a l'ltalie est de six et non d'un seul (M. Moses 
Nahon), comme M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres du Maroc avait cru 
pouvoix raffirmer dans la seance du 19 Juillet, 1879, des Conferences de 

" La veuve David Buzaglo et ses deux fils composent la famille dun 
Agent Diplomatique Italien, et jouisse a ce titre de la protection. 

" La veuve Isaac Toldano et 8 autres personnes appartiennent a la 
famille de Joseph Toldano, Interprete de la Legation d'ltalie, famille qui 
jusqu'a present a joui de la protection hereditaire comme la famille 
Benchimol, proteg6e par la France." 

(" Brit, and For. State Papers," lxxi. 825-826, 872, 873-874.) 

Akt. VI. Treaty of Madrid, July 6, 1880. 101 

VI. La protection s'etend sur la famille du protege. Sa demeure 
est respectee. 

II est entendu que la famille ne se compose que de la femme, 
des enfants, et des parents mineurs qui habitent sous le meme toit. 

La protection n'est pas hereditaire. Une seule exception, deja etablie 
par la Convention de 1863, et qui ne saurait creer un precedent, est main- 
tenue en favour de la famille Benchimol. 

Cependant, si le Sultan du Maroc accordait une autre exception, 
chacune des Puissances Contractantes aurait le droit de reclamer une 
concession semblable. 

(Ibid., pp. 641-642.) 

101 Cf. supra, p. 89. 



The Montefiore Edict, 1864. 

In the Name of God, the Merciful and Gracious. There is no power but 
in God, the High and Mighty. 

Be it known by this our Royal Edicts— may God exalt and bless its 
purport and elevate the same to the high heavens, as he does the sun and 
moon ! — that it is our command, that all Jews residing within our dominions, 
be the condition in which the Almighty God has placed them whatever it 
may, shall be treated by our Governors, Administrators, and all other 
subjects, in manner conformable with the evenly balanced scales of Justice, 
and that in the administration of the Courts of Law they (the Jews) shall 
occupy a position of perfect equality with all other people ; so that not 
even a fractional portion of the smallest imaginable particle of injustice 
shall reach any of them, nor shall they be subjected to anything of an 
objectionable nature. Neither they (the Authorities) nor any one else shall 
do them (the Jews) wrong, whether to their persons or to their property. 
Nor shall any tradesman among them, or artizan, be compelled to work 
against his will. The work of everyone shall be duly recompensed, for 
injustice here is injustice in Heaven, and we cannot countenance it in any 
matter affecting either their (the Jews') rights or the rights of others, our 
own dignity being itself opposed to such a course. All persons in our 
regard have an equal claim to justice ; and if any person should wrong or 
injure one of them (the Jews), we will, with the help of God, punish him. 

The commands hereinbefore set forth had been given and made known 
before now ; but we repeat them, and add force to them, in order that they 
may be more clearly understood, and more strictly carried into effect, as 
well as serve for a warning to such as may be evilly disposed towards them 
(the Jews), and that the Jews shall thus enjoy for the future more security 
than heretofore, whilst the fear to injure them shall be greatly increased. 

This Decree, blessed by God, is promulgated on the 26th of Shaban, 
1280 (15 February 1864). Peace ! 

(Loewe, " Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore," vol. ii. p. 153.) 

Further Extract from Protocols of the Madrid 
Conference (1880). 

Protocole No. 12.— Seance du 26 Juin, 1880. 

Le President observe que la Conference, ayant accompli, et au dela, 
la tache qu'elle s'etait proposee, est a la veille de se dissoudre. Mais il doit 
porter a la connaissance de ses membres, avant qu'ils ne se separent, une 


communication importante qui a ete adressee par le Saint-Siege au 
Ciouvernement de Sa Majeste Catholique. 

M. Canovas del Castillo donne lecture de la production suivante d'une 
lettre, en date du 4 Mai, 1880, quil a recue de son Eminence le Cardinal 
Nina : 

" Excellence, — Le Saint-Pere, obeissant au devoirs de sa mission 
apostolique, ne peut que mettre a profit toutes les occasions qui se 
presentent de veiller aux interets du Catholicisme, sur n*importe quel 
point du globe. Ayant appris que dans le courant de ce mois un Congres 
Diplomatique doit se reunir sous votre presidence pour s'occuper des affaires 
du Maroc, Sa Saintete, tout en reconnaissant que parmi les questions qui 
seront soumises a la deliberation de la Conference, celle qui se rapporte a 
la liberty religieuse dans l'Empire Marocain n'a pas ete particulierement 
designee, croit cependant que rien n'interdirait aux Plenipotentiaires r6- 
unis a Madrid de porter leur attention sur un sujet si important pour le 
bienetre des habitants du Maroc, quand meme il ne serait considere qu'au 
point de vue materiel. 

" II n'est point douteux que, de meme qu'au dernier Congres de Berlin 
les appels faits par mon illustre predecesseur, le Cardinal Franchi. aux 
Representants de la France et do l'Autriche, MM. Waddington et Andrassy, 
eurent pour resultat de faire accueillir et voter, avec l'approbation generate, 
les demandes de Sa Saintete relatives a la liberte de la religion Catholique 
pour les sujets de la Sublime Porte et des Etats qui l'avoisinent, de meme 
la proposition que je fais en ce moment trouvera un accueil non moins 
favorable de la part des dignes Representants a la veille de se r6unir dans 
la capitale d'une nation si deVouee au Saint-Siege, et liee par tant d'interets 
a l'Empire du Maroc. O'autre part, il n'est pas permis de pr6sumer que 
le Gouvernement Marocain, uni par un lien si etroit au Representant 
supreme de l'lslamisme, puisse se refuser a suivre l'exemple qui lui a 6te 
offert par l'adhesion de l'Empereur des Ottomans aux Articles stipules 
dans le Congres de Berlin, Iorsquela Conference qui vase rdunir lui proposera 
d'adopter une resolution analogue. 

" Obeissant a ces considerations, le Saint-Pere m'a charge de m'adresser 
a votre Excellence, digne President de l'Assemblee, et de faire appel, en 
son nom Pontifical, a. ses sentiments comme Catholique et comme Espagnol, 
afin quelle veuille bien se charger de proposer et de defendre au sein du 
Congres la proposition sus-indiquee, qui porte que les sujets du Sultan, ainsi 
que les Strangers, jouiront au Maroc du libre exercice du culte Catholique, 
sans que par ce motif ils aient a souffrir tort ou prejudice dans leurs droits 
civils ou politiques. 

" Le Saint-Pere ne meconnait point les obstacles qu'oppose I'etat 
aetuel du Maroc a la realisation de cette liberte ; mais ces obstacles, loin 


de decourager, doivent stimuler les cceurs genereux qui n'envisagent que 
la grandeur du but a atteindre. 

" Du reste, une fois que le Gouvernement Marocain aura accepte le 
principe en question, et pris vis-a-vis des Puissances etrangeres l'engage- 
ment de s'y conformer, si ces Puissances, d'accord avec l'Espagne, dont 
les relations avec le Maroc presentent un caractere tout special, voulaient 
prendre une attitude semblable a celle qu'elles ont adoptee en Orient, on 
pourrait avec raison esperer que le progres de la civilisation ameneraient 
bientot, par des voies pacifiques, le libre exercice du culte Catholique dans 
ces regions Africaines. 

" En me conformant aux ordres de l'auguste Pontife, je dois en meme 
temps vous faire savoir que le Saint-Pere est anime d'une conviction intime 
que vous repondrez a son appel paternel et que les Representants des autres 
Puissances seconderont vos efforts, en accueillant avec faveur une demande 
conforme aux principes aujourd'hui admis du droit public international. 

" Le Saint-Pere croit dgalement qu'en agissant ainsi, votre Excellence 
repondra aux sentiments bien connus de Sa Majeste le Roi, son auguste 
Souverain, en faveur de notre sainte religion. 

Je saisis, &c, 

" L. Card. Nina, 
" A son Excellence M. Canovas del Casttllo." 

M. Canovas del Castillo a eu l'honneur de repondre a Mgr. le Nonce 
Apostolique a Madrid, avec lequel il s'est entretenu a ce sujet, que le Pleni- 
potentiaire d'Espagne etait pret a presenter, et a appuyer au sein de la 
Conference, la proposition du Saint-Siege, aussitot qu'il serait avere que 
les Representants des autres Puissances pourraient consentir a traiter des 
questions en dehors de celles qui avaient motive leur reunion ; il devrait, 
en particulier, consulter son collegue le Representant de la Grande-Bretagne, 
dont le Gouvernement a pris 1'initiative de la convocation des Plenipoten- 
tiaires, sur 1'opportunite qu'il y aurait a saisir la Conference de cette pro- 
position. M. Canovas a ajoute que, si la Conference admettait en principe 
la possibility de traiter des questions etrangeres au but determine qu'elle 
s'etait propose, le Plenipotentiaire d'Espagne tiendrait a honneur de remplir 
la mission que le Saint-Siege daignait lui confier, et qu'il etait persuade que 
la communication du Saint-Pere serait accueillie, en ce cas, avec toute la 
deference due a sa haute origine. 

II a rappele en meme temps que le Traite de 1861 assure la liberte 
religieuse aux Catholiques Espagnols au Maroc, et que d'autre part le Traite 
Anglais de 1856 stipulait egalement, pour les sujets Britanniques, le libre 
exercice de leur culte. 

Ayant acquis posterieurement la conviction que les Plenipotentiaires 


sont disposes a examiner cette question, le President estime que la Conference 
devra faire une declaration erigeant en regie generate le principe que le 
Maroc a deja admis par des Traites. 

Le Plenipotentiaire d'Autriche-Hongrie prend alors la parole, et dit 
que le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste Imperiale et Royale Apostolique, a 
la suite d'une demarche analogue du Saint-Siege, a pu s' assurer, de son cote 
que les autres Cabinets seraient, en effet, disposes a se joindre a un vceu 
comme celui dont vient de prendre l'initiative le President de la Conference, 
pourvu que ce vceu fut exprime en faveur de tous les habitants non-Musul- 
mans du Maroc, et que la Conference recommandat en meme temps a la 
sagesse du Sultan du Maroc l'abolition des incapacites qui pesent encore 
sur certaines classes de ses sujets en raison de leurs croyances. 

C'est dans ce sens, et pour donner une forme plus precise a ce vceu, 
■que M. le Comte Ludolf a ete charge de preparer le projet d'Adresse au 
Souverain du Maroc qu'il a l'honneur de soumettre a la Conf6rence. 

Le Plenipotentiaire d'Autriche-Hongrie donne lecture du document 
-en ces termes : — 

" La Conference, au moment de se dissoudre, informee par son President 
de la demande exprimee en faveur de l'Eglise Catholique par Sa Saintete le 
Souverain Pontife, dans le lettre dont lecture vient d'etre fait, demande de 
son cote que le libre exercice de tous les cultes soit reconnu au Maroc. 

" La Conference, d'autant plus convaincu que ce vceu trouvera un 
accueil favorable aupres de Sa Majeste Cherifienne que l'illustre Souverain 
du Maroc a deja donne une preuve manifeste de sa tolerance et de sa sollici- 
tude pour le bien-etre de ses sujets non-Musulmans, en confirmant en 1874 
le Decret accorde par Sa Majeste le Sultan Sidi Mohammed, sous le 26 Chaban 
de 1280 (Fevrier 1864) a Sir Moses Montefiore, Decret qui proclame que 
tous les sujets de 1'Empire du Maroo doivent avoir le meme rang devant 
la loi : que par consequent les Juifs du Maroc doivent etre traites conforme- 
merit a la justice et a l'equite, et qu'aucune violence ne doit etre exercee a 
Tegard de leurs personnes ni de leurs biens. 

" A la suite de ce Decret, bien des lois humiliantes, edictees contre les 
non-Musulmans dans des temps anterieurs, ont ete mises hors de pratique, 
et le sort des races non-Musulmans au Maroc est devenu plus supportable. 
" Toutefois, ces lois ne sont pas encore toutes formellement revoquees, et 
quelques unes meme continuent a etre en vigueur dans plus d'un endroit de 
l'interieur de 1'Empire. De meme, le libre exercice de leurs cultes n'est pas 
encore accorde d'une maniere legale aux sujets non-Musulmans de Sa Majeste 
Cherifienne, et beaucoup de restrictions existent encore pour ces derniers qui 
sont contraires a 1'esprit du Decret du 26 Chaban, 1280, et a cette regie si 
elementaire et si universellement respectee, que les sujets d'un meme pays, 
de quelque race ou de quelque religion qu'ils soient, des qu'ils accomplissent 


fidelement leurs devoirs envers le Souverain, doivent jouir d'une parfaite 
identite de droits et d'une complete egalite devant la loi. 

" Le Sultan Abdul Medjid, Empereur des Ottomans, a deja, en 1839, 
par le Hatti-Cherif de Gulhane, reconnu spontanement et inserit dans la 
legislation de son pays ee rneme principe, qui a ete developpe et consacre depuis 
par ses suooesseurs, en 1856 et dernierement encore en 1878, de facon qu'on 
ne saurait douter qu'il ne se laisse parfaitement concilier avee la loi 

" Quoique persuadee que l'illustre Souverain du Maroc est anime, non 
moins que le Sultan de la Turquie, d'intentions bienveillantes envers ses 
sujets non-Musulmans, la Conference croirait manquer a un devoir si elle 
ne temoignait le vif et profond interet qu'elle prend a la prompte ameliora- 
tion de leur sort. A cet effet, la Conference, au nom des Hautes Puissances 
representee ; dans son sein, fait appel a Sa Majeste Cheriflenne afin que, fidele 
a ses sentiments de justice et de generosite, elle manifeste sa ferme volonte — 

" 1. De faire respecter dans ses Stats le principe que tous ceux qui ,y 
habitent et qui y habiteront a l'avenir pourront professer et exercer saTis 
entraves leurs cultes ; 

" 2. De prescrire a son Gouvernement, comme base immuable de la 
legislation du Maroc, la maxime, deja adoptee dans le Decret du 26 Chaban, 
1280, et d'apres laquelle ni la religion ni la race ne pourront jamais etre un 
motif pour etablir une difference dans le traitement par et devant la loi entre 
ses sujets Musulmans et non-Musulmans, ni servir de pretexte pour imposer a 
ces derniers des humiliations, pour les priver d'un droit civil quelconque, ou 
pour les empecher d'exercer librement toutes les professions et industries 
qui sont permises aux sujets Musulmans de l'Empire. 

" Une pareille manifestation non seulement honorerait le regne de Sa 
Majeste Cheriflenne, mais inaugurerait aussi pour ses Stats une ere nouvelle 
de prosperite. 

" Les Soussignes, en deposant le present acte entre les mains de son 
Excellence Cid Mohammed Vargas, prient M. le Plenipotentiaire du Maroc de 
le soumettre a Sa Majeste Cheriflenne, qui ne lui refusera certes pas la serieuse 
attention que merite un voeu exprime au nom des Puissances que les Sous- 
signes ont l'honneur de representer. 

" Madrid, le 26 Juin, 1880." 

Ce texte est approuve par les Plenipotentiaires, a l'exception du Repre- 
sentant de Sa Majeste Cheriflenne, qui ne peut que s'engager a porter a la 
oonnaissance de son Souverain les vu;ux quo les Plenipotentiaires viennent 
d'exprimer au nom de leurs Gouvernements respectifs. 

Cid Mohammed Vargas croit cependant devoir rappeler qu'au Maroc 
les Musulmans, les Chretiens, et les Juifs suivent leur religion, sans qu il y 
soit mis d'empechement ni d'obstacle. 


Le Plenipotentiaire du Maroc n'a pas d'instructions de son Souverain 
qui lui permettent de traiter cette question ou toute autre qui, comme 
elle, ne se rattacherait pas directefhent a l'objet de sa mission a Madrid. 
Neanmoins, en vue de 1'Adresse que vient d'adopter la Conference, il croit 
devoir lui communiquer une lettre qu'il a regu de Sa Majeste le Sultan 
Muley-el-Hassan, et qui a trait aux Juifs ses sujets. II en donne lecture 
en ces termes : — 

" Louange a Dieu unique ! Que la benediction de Dieu soit sur Mahomet, 
notre Seigneur et Maitre, sur sa famille, et ses compagnons ! 

" A notre estime serviteur, le Taleb Mohammed Vargas. Que Dieu te 
soit propice, et que la paix soit sur toi, ainsi que la benediction de Dieu Ties 
Haut et sa misericorde. 

" Et puis : — 

" II est parvenu a notre connaissance que certains Juifs de nos sujets 
se sont plaints a plusieurs reprises a leurs freres residant en Europe et aux 
Representants etrangers a. Tanger, de ce qu'ils ne parviennent pas a obtenir 
justice dans leurs reclamations relatives a meurtres, vols, &c. lis pretendent 
que les Gouverneurs montrent de 1'indifference a leur faire avoir satisfaction 
des personnes qui les attaquent, et que leurs demandes n'arrivent jamais a 
notre Majeste Cherifienne, si ce n'est par l'entremise de personnes (les Juifs 
residant en Europe et les Representants etrangers). 

" Notre volonte Cherifienne est qu'ils obtiennent justice sans l'interven- 
tion des Puissances ni des Representants, parce qu'ils sont nos sujets et nos 
tributaires, ayant par la les memes droits que les Musulmans devant nous, et 
tous abus contre eux etant defendu par notre religion. 

" C'est pourquoi nous t'ordonnons d'accepter la reclamation de tout Juif 
qui se plaindra de ne pas obtenir justice d'un Gouverneur, et de nous en donner 
connaissance lorsque tu ne trouveras pas le moyen d'y faire droit. 

" Nous avons envoye des ordres en ce sens aux Gouverneurs des villes, 
des ports, et de la campagne, afin qu'ils en donnent connaissance aux Juifs, 
et en meme temps nous les avons prevenus que si quelqu'un d'eux s'oppose 
ou met des difficultes a ce que la plainte d'un Juif parvienne a toi, nous le 
punirons tres severement. 

" Nous t'ordonnons de traiter leurs affaires avec toute justice et de ne 
rien nous cacher sur l'arbitraire des Gouverneurs a leur egard, car tous les 
hommes sont egaux pour nous en matiere de justice. 

" Le 22 Joumadi premier, an 1297." 

Le President dormant acte au Representant du Maroc de cette communi- 
cation, constate, au nom de tous les Plenipotentiaires, la vive satisfaction 
avec laquelle la Conference accueille les 1 declarations qui viennent de lui etre 
faites. Les Plenipotentiaires voient dans le principe, qu'elles etablissent, d'un 
appel au Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, a la fois une preuve des senti- 


ments de justice qui animent Sa Majeste Cherifienne a, 1'egard de ses 
sujets Israelites, et l'annonce du prompt accomplissement des vceux 
exprimes par la Conference. 

(" British and Foreign State Papers," vol. Ixxi. pp. 881-887.) 

Extracts prom Protocols of the Algeciras Cohference, 1906 
No. 33. 2 Avril, 1906. Dix-septi&me Seance. 

S.Exc. M. White (fitats-Unis) prononce ensuite les paroles suivantes : 
" Le Gouvernement des fitats-Unis d'Amerique a toujours considere comme 
un devoir de s'associer a, tout ce qui pourrait contribuer au progres des idees 
d'humanite et assurer le respect du a toutes les croyances religieuses. Anime 
par ces sentiments et par l'amitie qui a si longtemps subsiste entre lui et 
l'Empire morocain dont il suit le developpement avec un profond interet, 
mon Gouvernement m'a charge d'invoquer le concours de la Conference, au 
moment oil elle est sur le point de terminer ses travaux, en vue de remission 
d'un voeu pour le bien-etre des israelites au Maroc. Je suis heureux de con- 
stater que la condition des sujets israelites de S.M. Cherifienne a ete de beau- 
coup amelioree pendant le regne de feu le Sultan Mouley-el-Hassan et que le 
Sultan actuel parait, autant qu'il lui a ete possible, les avoir traites avec equite 
et bienveillance. Mais les agents du Makhzen, dans les parties du pays 
eloignees du pouvoir central ne s'inspirent pas toujours suffisamment des senti- 
ments de tolerance et de justice qui animent leur souverain. La Delegation 
americaine vient done prier la Conference de vouloir bien emettre le vceu que 
S.M. Cherifienne continue dans la bonne voie inauguree par son pere et main- 
ten no par Sa Majeste elle-meme par rapport a ses sujets israelites et qu'elle 
vise a ce que son Gouvernement ne neglige aucune occasion de faire savoir a 
ses fonctionnaires que le Sultan tient a ce que les israelites de son Empire et 
tous ses sujets, sans distinction de croyance, soient traites avec justice et 

S.Exc. Sir Arthur Nicolson (Grande-Bretagne) declare que, conformement 
aux instructions de son Gouvernement, il est heureux de se rallier a la proposi- 
tion du premier D61egue des Etats-Unis. 

S.Exc. M. le Due de Almodovar del Rio (Espagne) s'exprime en ces 
termes : " Je m'associe, au nom de S.M. Catholique, aux hauts sentiments 
de tolerance religieuse qui viennent d'etre exprimes par S. Exc. le premier 
Delegue des fitats-Unis ; et je tiens d'autant plus a me rallier a sa proposition 
que le sort des populations israelites au Maroc, rattachees a TEspagne par des 
liens de descendance et dont la langue habituelle continue a etre la langue 
castillane, qui fut naguere celle de leurs ancetres, est particulierement interes- 
sant aux yeux du peuple espagnol d'aujourd'hui." 


LL.EE. MM. de Radovvitz (Allemagne) et Revoil (France) se rallient 
egalement au vosu de M. le premier Delegue des Etats-Unis. 

S.Exc. M. le Marquis Visconti Venosta (Italie) declare qu'il adhere 
au vceu dont S.Exc. le premier Delegue des Etats-Unis a pris 1'initiative. 
II reconnait que, dans ces derniers temps, les Souverains du Maroc ont 
donne de preuves de tolerance vis-a-vis de leurs sujets non-musulmans ; 
mais il ne reste pas moins a desirer que les conditions des juifs dans l'in- 
terieur de l'Empire soient mises au meme niveau et entourees des memes 
garanties que dans les villes et ports de la cote. La Conference, dans le 
cours de ses travaux, s'est toujours preoccupee du progres et de la pros- 
perity du Maroc ; elle restera fidele au meme esprit en exprimant a S.M. 
le Sultan le vceu que tous ses sujets, quelle que soit leur religion, soient 
appeles a jouir des memes droits, ainsi que du meme traitement devant 
la loi et que les ordres que S.M. Cherifienne a donnes ou donnera a cet effet 
soient fidelement executes. L'assentiment de l'ltalie est toujours acquis 
a raffirmation des principes de liberte religieuse qui sont une des bases de 
ses institutions politiques et sociales. 

S.Exc. le Baron Joostens (Belgique) declare que la Delegation beige 
s'associe entierement a la declaration que vient de faire S.Exc. M. le Marquis 
Visconti- Venosta. 

LL.EE.- le Jonkheer Testa (Pays-Bas), M. le Comte Cassini (Russie) 
et M. Sager (Suede) adherent aussi aux sentiments exprimes par MM. les 
premiers Delegues des Etats-Unis et d'ltalie. 

Le voeu propose par S.Exc. M. White est adopte par l'unanimite des 
Delegues des Puissances. 

LL.EE. MM. les Delegues marocains expliquent qu'ils ne manqueront 
pas de faire connaitre cette decision a S.M. le Sultan, qui certainement 
aura a coeur de proceder dans l'espece de la meme facon que feu son pere. 

S.Exc. M. White (fitats-Unis) remercie MM. les Delegues des Puissances 
d'une adhesion qui repond si entierement aux vues du Gouvernement des 
Etats-Unis et aux sentiments personnels du President Roosevelt. 

(" Protocoles et Comptes Rendus de la Conference d'Algesiras " (Paris, 
1906), pp. 246-248.) 


Until quite recently the question of the national restoration of the 
Jews to Palestine did not play a conspicuous part, or, indeed, much 
of a part at all, in practical international politics. This is not a 
little strange in view of the great mass of religious opinion which 
has always been deeply interested in it. It may be profitable to 
indicate some of the reasons. 

* In the first place, from the middle of the second down to the 
middle of the nineteenth centuries the Palestine problem, as a political 
problem, was exclusively concerned with the custody of the Holy 
Places of Christendom. After the failure of the many attempts to 
oust the Turk, the question became one of diplomatic accommodation, 
and under the Capitulations with France and the Treaties of Carlowitz 
and Passarowitz between the Holy Roman Empire and the Grand 
Signior, various expedients were adopted by which Christian interests 
in Jerusalem might be reconciled with the local political rights of the 
Ottoman Porte. This difficult problem absorbed the Oriental activi- 
ties of European diplomacy until after the Crimean War, and it left 
no room for the consideration of Jewish claims. 

v In the second place the question during the whole of this period 
was always primarily one of eschatology rather than of practical 
politics. Even when the Millenarian mystics sometimes crossed 
the border-line, the case they presented was not calculated to con- 
ciliate sovereign princes. We have a curious instance of this in the 
first Zionist book published in London, " The World's Great Restora- 
tion, or Calling of the Jewes " — (London, 1621) — which was written 
by Sir Henry Finch, the eminent serjeant-at-law, although his name 
does not appear on the title page. 102 Among other items in Finch's 

102 Fuller : A Pisgah Sight of Palestine (Lond. 1650), bk. iv. p. 194. 



programme was one to the effect that all Christian princes should 
surrender their power and do homage " to the temporal supreme 
Empire of the Jewish nation." When James I read the book he 
was furious. He said lie was " too auld a King to do his homage 
at Jerusalem," and he ordered Finch to be thrown into gaol. 103 In 
1795 an exactly similar proposal was made by an ex-naval officer, 
one Richard Brothers, who announced himself as King of the Jews. 
He also was prosecuted, but was found to be a lunatic. 104 A certain 
political interest attaches to the case of Brothers, inasmuch as his 
scheme for the National Restoration of the Jews was brought before 
the House of Commons by one of his adherents, Mr. Nathaniel 
Brassey Halhed, M.P., with a motion for the printing and distribu- 
tion of Brothers's proposal. The motion failed to find a seconder. 105 
v In the third place, unless the Restoration were favoured by the 
Ottoman Government, all schemes to compass it in normal times 
ran counter to international law and the comity of nations. This 
point was actually decided in this sense by the Law Courts some 
seventy years ago in the case of Habershon v. Vardon. The case 
related to a bequest by one Nadir Baxter for the political restora- 
tion of the Jews in Jerusalem. The bequest was held void, and the 
Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said : " If it could be under- 
stood to mean anything it was to create a revolution in a friendly 
country." 106 

* In the fourth place the idea was likely to weaken the doctrine 
of the integrity of Turkey, and, for this and other reasons, was in- 
consistent with the interests and traditional policy of Great Britain 
and other Western States. It was all the more inconsistent because 
this policy originally shaped itself in deference to religious considera- 

103 D'Israeli : Genius of Judaism, pp. 200-201. 

104 The Restoration of the Hebrews to Jerusalem by the Year of 1798 under the 
Revealed Prince and Prophet (Lond. 1794). A letter from Mr. Brothers to Miss 
Colt with an Address to the Members of His Britannic Majesty's Council (Lond. 
1798). The Curious Trial of Mr. Brothers . . . on a Statute of Lunacy (Lond. 

i05 jtf r _ JialheSs Speech in the House of Commons . . . on Monday, May the 
4th, 1795 (Lond. 1795). 

1M Law Reports : 4 De Gex & Sraale, 467. 


tions far more precious to Englishmen than the national cause of 
the Jews. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the 
struggle between the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation 
was at its height, the naval balance of power in the Mediterranean 
rested between Spain and Turkey. Hence a bias towards Turkey 
on the part of Protestant States was inevitable. Curiously enough, 
the Jews, who were then hostile to Spain, supported the pro-Turkish 
policy of England, as they did in 1876-78 on account of their antipathy 
to Russia. In the time of Cromwell this consideration was rein- 
forced by our trade interests in the Levant and in India. A century 
later the tradition became again imperative owing to the fear of 
Russia and afterwards of Napoleon. All this rendered a strong and 
friendly Turkey necessary to us, and hence to entertain the idea of 
a National Restoration of the Jews to Palestine was to risk offence 
to a valued ally. 

> A fifth reason was the indifference of the Jews themselves. Until 
the Zionist movement was founded twenty years ago there was 
scarcely any symptom of a Jewish desire for international action 
on their behalf in the Palestine question. This was not for want 
of opportunity or even for want of suggestion from others. In 
1840, when Mehemet Ali was driven out of Palestine and Syria by 
the Powers, the future of Palestine was open for discussion. 107 The 
country, with all its Hebrew and Christian shrines, was in the hands 
of Christendom, who could have done with it as it pleased. Not a 
voice was raised among the Jews for the restoration of the land 
to them. And this, be it remembered, was when Sir Moses Monte- 
fiore and M. Cremieux were busy in the East in connection with the 
Damascus Blood Accusation, and when Lord Palmerston was pro- 
posing to take the Jews under British protection as a separate nation- 
ality. 108 Instead of championing the national aspirations of the 

107 For details see infra, pp. 104-106. 

108 Finn : op. cit., i. 106. The passage is worth quoting : " In 1839, Lord 
Palmerston's direction to his first Consul in Jerusalem was " to afford protection 
to the Jews generally.' The words were simply those, broad and general, as under 
the circumstances they ought to be, leaving alter events to work out their own 
modifications. The instruction, however, seemed to bear on its face a recognition 
that the Jews are a nation by themselves and that contingencies might possibly 


Jews, they contented themselves with obtaining the famous Hatti- 
Humayoun, or Charter of Liberties for the Jews of Turkey, by which 
they were more nearly assimilated to Turkish Nationals. 109 In the 
following year the Powers were actually discussing the future of 
Palestine, but the Jews again made no move. Even while the nego- 
tiations were in progress, a scheme for restoring the Jews as the 
political masters of the country was drawn up by a Christian, Colonel 
Churchill, then British Consul in Syria, and submitted by him to 
Sir Moses Montefiore and the Board of Deputies. Its reception 
was curiously frigid. Whilst piously blessing Colonel Churchill's pro- 
posals, the Board declined to take any initiative. 110 It was the same 
in 1878 when Lord Beaconsfield annexed Cyprus and secured a British 
Protectorate over Asiatic Turkey. No opportunity could have seemed 
better for the promotion of Zionist aims, but when Laurence Oliphant 
pointed this out he found scarcely an echo beyond a small circle of 
obscure Jewish dreamers in Southern Russia. 111 Indeed, until the time 
of Herzl all the most prominent protagonists of Zionism were Christians. 
The Dane, Holger Paulli, who in 1697 presented a Zionist scheme 
to King William III of England with a view to its submission to 
the Peace Conference of Ryswick, was a Christian, 112 and even the 
notorious Jewish pseudo-Messiah, Sabbathai Zevi, who raised the 
flag of Jewish nationality in Syria thirty years earlier, owed more 
of his inspiration to English Fifth Monarchy teaching than to 
Jewish tradition. 113 

Nevertheless, there were two occasions on which the Jewish 

arise in which their relations to Mohammedans should become difficult, though it 
was impossible to foresee the shape that future transactions might assume upon the 
impending expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria." 

108 See text of Firman in Loewe : Diaries of Sir M. Montefiore, i. 278-279. 

110 Infra, pp. 119-124. 

111 Memoir of Laurence Oliphant, ii. 179. As late as January 1888 Mr. Oscar 
Straus, the United States Minister in Constantinople and himself a Jew, assured 
the Grand Vizier, with regard to the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, 
" that no such purpose actuated the Jews throughout the world " (Foreign Rela- 
tions of U.S., 1888, p. 1559). 

10 Anabaptisticum et Enthusiasticum Pantheon (1702), Novus in Belgio 
Judaeorum Rex, p. 25. 

u * Graetz : Qeschichte, x. 207. 


aspects of the Palestine question did enter the field of practical 
international politics. 

The first was in 1799, when Napoleon carried out his audacious 
raid on British interests in the East by his expedition to Egypt and 
Syria. A scheme for enlisting the support of the Jews by founding 
a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine formed part of the plans for 
the expedition secretly prepared by the Directory in 1798, and French 
public opinion was familiarised with it by a good deal of propagandist 
literature. The Jews were alleged to be anxious to support the 
French in the Levant, and a bogus Zionist scheme — very much on 
the Herzlian lines — supposed to be written by an Italian Jew — was 
widely circulated in France. It embodied an appeal to the Jews 
of the world to form a representative council through which they 
could negotiate with the Directory for Palestine. It was supported 
in a very soberly reasoned article by the Decade Philosophique et 
Litteraire, and was soon after published in the London Press and 
reprinted as a twopenny pamphlet by the Courier. 111 Ten months 
later Napoleon, marching from El Arish on the road which has lately 
been traversed by General Allenby, published a proclamation in- 
viting the Jews of Asia and Africa to rally to his standard " for the 
restoration of the ancient kingdom of Jerusalem." 115 The scheme 
collapsed with the battles of Acre and Aboukir. 

The second occasion was in 1841, when the Powers had to decide 
on the fate of Syria and Palestine wrested by them from Mehemet 
Ali. It is true that the Jewish element in the question received very 
scanty attention and evoked no positive sympathy, but, at any rate, 
it was mentioned, and this fact indicates that the Powers had begun 
to realise that the future of Palestine was not exclusively a Christian 
question. The exchange of views which then took place is, however, 
interesting for other reasons. The documents, which are now pub- 
lished for the first time, comprise four separate schemes for solving 
the Palestine problem, and the considerations discussed in connection 
with them constitute a body of material which may be usefully studied 
at the present moment. 

ul " Re-establishment of the Jewish Government, with a letter from a Jew 
to his Brethren ; copied from the Courier, June 10, 1798." 
116 Lemoine : NapoUen et les Juifs (Paris, 1900), p. 72. 


The first scheme, apparently suggested by France, contem- 
plated the creation of a small autonomous Ecclesiastical State, con- 
sisting of Jerusalem, constituted as a Free City, with a limited rayon 
of territory. This was to be governed by a Christian municipality, 
organised and protected by the Great Christian Powers. 116 Russia 
raised objections in October 1840, and incidentally took occasion to 
ridicule the idea of a National Restoration of the Jews. 117 Both Russia 
and Austria were anxious to preserve the Turkish domination, and 
to that end made counter-proposals. The Russian scheme proposed 
that Palestine should become a separate Pashalik, that the Church 
of the Orient should be restored, that the Greek Patriarch should 
resume his residence in Jerusalem, and that a special Church and 
Monastery should be founded for the use of the Russian clergy 
and pilgrims. The Austrian scheme proposed to leave the Turkish 
administration untouched except in regard to jurisdiction over Chris- 
tians. This was to be confided to a high Turkish official directly 
responsible to Constantinople and advised by a Council of Procureurs 
appointed by the Great Powers. 118 Russia opposed the Austrian 
scheme. 11 * Thereupon Prussia put forward a fourth scheme of a 
far more ambitious character. 120 It provided for a European Pro- 
tectorate of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, 
and a sort of national autonomy for the various Christian sects which 
might be extended to the Jews, the whole to be governed by three 
Residents appointed by the Christian Powers. Each Resident was 
to have a small military guard. The Protestant Church, under the 
joint protection of Great Britain and Prussia, was to be recognised 
as on an equal footing with the other Churches, and to establish its 
headquarters and other institutions — including schools for Jews — on 
Mount Zion, which was to be fortified. - 121 This scheme was strongly 

u * Infra, p. 107. There is no trace of this scheme in the Foreign Office papers 
except in the reference herequoted from the Russian Memorandum, but Tatisteheff, 
who saw the Russian set of these papers in the Petrograd Foreign Office, describes 
a scheme submitted by Guizot to Palmerston and Metternich which seems to be the 
one referred to here. (Kamarowsky : " La Question d' Orient," in Revue Oenirale 
de Droit International Public, iii. 423.) 

"" Infra, pp. 107-109. u8 Infra, pp. 111-113. 

n > Infra, p. 113. "« Infra, pp. 114-116. 

121 Covering despatch from Baron Biilow, infra, p. 116. 


opposed by Austria, in whose view Lord Palmerston concurred. 122 
Russia also opposed it, but in Paris it was received sympathetically. 123 
In the end all these schemes were dropped, and Palestine was 
handed back to the Porte practically without any new conditions. 
Prussia, however, continued her negotiations with Great Britain, 
both with a view to general reforms and to the recognition of the 
Protestant Church in Jerusalem. For this purpose she sent Baron 
Bunsen to London on a special embassy. 124 Among the reforms 
proposed by him were facilities for the purchase of land, " as 
many persons in Protestant Germany, Jews and Christians, are 
desirous of settling in Palestine." 125 Eventually he negotiated with 
Palmerston the Anglo-Prussian Agreement for the establishment 
of a Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem. There is a curious refer- 
ence to the Restoration of the Jews in Bunsen's account of this 
transaction : 126 

"Monday, 19th July, 1841. — This is a great day. I am just returned 
from Lord Palmerston ; the principle is admitted, and orders to be trans- 
mitted accordingly to Lord Ponsonby at Constantinople, to demand the 
acknowledgement required. The successor of St. James will embark in 
October ; he is by race an Israelite,- — born a Prussian in Breslau, — in con- 
fession belonging to the Church of England — ripened (by hard work) in 
Ireland — twenty years Professor of Hebrew and Arabic in England (in 
what is now King's College). 127 So the beginning is made, please God, for 
the restoration of Israel." 

It should be added that probably one of the reasons why, 
during recent years, the British Government has held aloof from the 
Palestine question is that by the Treaty of London of July 15, 1840, 
Palestine was recognised as an integral part of Syria, 128 and that in 
1878, at the Berlin Congress, Lord Salisbury agreed to recognise the 

1,2 Despatch from Lord Beauvale and draft of reply by Palmerston, infra, 
pp. 116-117. m Kamarowsky, op. cit., p. 423. 

121 Memoirs of Bunsen (London, 1868), i. 593 el seq. 

125 Memorandum of July 15, 1841, presented to Palmerston by Bunsen (P.O. 
64/235 Prussia). 

128 Letter from Bunsen to his Wife (Memoirs, i. 608-609). 

127 Bishop Alexander was before his conversion Minister of the Jewish 
Synagogue at Plymouth. 

128 Holland : European Concert in Eastern Question, p. 93. 


whole of Syria as a French sphere of interest in return for the French 
recognition of the Cyprus Convention between Great Britain and 
Turkey. 129 It is to be assumed from the terms of the Secret Agree- 
ment of February 21, 1917, 130 that British interests in the Suez Canal 
and other more recent events have modified that arrangement. 

During the present war the growing strength of the Zionist 
movement, and the energy of its leaders, have forced the Restora- 
tion idea on the attention of the Great Powers. In November 1917 
Great Britain led the way with a promise to give sympathetic con- 
sideration to the aims of the Zionists. 131 With this promise the 
other Entente Powers have since associated themselves. 


The Great Powers and Palestine, 1840-1841. 

Memorandum delivered by the Russian Government to the Prussian Government 

in October 1840. 

Des opinions diverses et pour la plupart contradictoires, ont circule recem- 
raent en Europe, et surtout en France, sur les facifites que les grandes Puis- 
sances intervenues dans les affaires de l'Orient, auraient, dans ce moment, 
pour aecomplir 1'ceuvre que les Croises d'autrefois avaient vainement tentee 
dans leurs longues et sanglantes guerres. Le projet d'eriger une Souverainete 
Chretienne en Palestine, a ete mis, si non serieusement discute. D'autres ont 
pense a la possibility de faire revivre l'aneien ordre des Chevaliers du St. 
Sepulcre pour lui confler la garde de ce sanctuaire. II y a eu meme quelques 
individus qui ont exprime le voeu d'appeler dans la ville de Salomon les Juifs 
disperses dans differents pays pour tenter la conversion sociale et religieuse 
de ce peuple d'antique et coupable origine. 

II serait superflu de discuter ici tous ces projets, on ne s'arretera qu'a 
1'examen d'une autre combinaison dont la realisation serait desirable, si elle 
etait possible. II s'agirait de l'assentiment de la Porte et d'une entente 
entre les principales cours de l'Europe pour 6riger Jerusalem une ville fibre, 
avec un rayon de territoire convenable et sous une administration municipale 
organisee sous les auspices des Puissances qui se declareraient les protectrices 
et les garanties de ce petit 6tat ecclesiastique. 1 " 

129 British and Foreign State Papers, lxix. 1342-1353 ; lxxiii. 438. 

130 Infra, p. 124. 131 Infra, pp. 124-125. 

132 This was probably the scheme suggested by Guizot (supra, p. 105). 


Un pareil arrangement doit assurement reunir beaucoup de suffrages. 
Cependant, avant d'aborder la question d'une maniere serieuse, soit aveo les 
autres Cabinets, soit aveo le Divan il importe de calculer d'avance les moyens 
dont on disposera pour mener l'oeuvre a bon terme, les difficultes locales qu'on 
aura a surmonter dans la realisation du plan convenu et les probabilites qui 
s'offrent pour le maintien du nouvel ordre de choses qu'on parviendrait a 
etablir Sous tous ces rapports on peut consulter aveo profit les renseigne- 
ments et les donnes que le Ministere de Sa Majest6 possede, et qui lui ont ete 
fournis en partie par les indigenes, mais plus particulierement par deux 
employes du service de S.M. qui ont visite la terre sainte a des epoques diffe- 
rentes, et recueilli sur les lieux memes des informations dont on ne saurait 
revoquer en doute l'exaetitude. 

II r6sulte de l'ensemble de ces informations : 

1. Que la ville de Jerusalem, situee entre la Syrie, l'Egypte et le desert, 
a ete de tout temps exposee d'une part aux incursions des Arabes Bedouins 
et de l'autre aux vexations des Pachas voisins. 

2. Que sa population, composee d'environ 15/m. ames, parmi lesquelles 
on compte a peine un millier de Chretiens appartenant a diverses communions, 
n'offre guere d' elements propres a la formation d'une administration munici- 
pale indigene, digne de quelque confiance, sous le rapport politique ou 

3. Que 1'eloignement des cotes de la mer, distantes de la ville de pres 
de deux journees de marche a travers une route escarpee et deserte, ne permet- 
trait pas aux batiments de guerre Europeens de prendre sous la protection de 
leurs canons la defense de la cite et de ses habitants. 

4. Que la population Musulmane et Arabe etablie depuis des siecles dans 
le pays et qui possede dans la seuie ville de Jerusalem plus de trente mosquees, 
ainsi que le fameux temple de Salomon que les premiers califes conquerants 
ont rebati, s'assujettiraient difficilement a un Gouvernement Chretien quel- 
conque, qui ne disposerait pas de beaucoup de ressources et d'une forte garni- 
son, pour en imposer aux hordes des Bedouins et pour reduire par les armes tout 
ce qui s'opposerait au nouvel ordre de choses. 

Les memes rapports signalent, sous les plus tristes couleurs, la desunion 
profonde et la rivalite incessante qui existe entre les Chretiens des diverses 
communions, admis a l'adoration du St. Sepulcre et dont les scandaleuses 
dissensions, loin d'etre amorties ou contenues par la saintete du lieu, y ont 
eclate souvent avec une vivacite haineuse et une obstination fanatique que 
la presence des autorites Musulmanes pouvait seuie contenir dans de certaines 

Nous savons enfin de maniere a ne pas pouvoir en douter que les religieux 
Latins, pour la plupart Espagnols et Portugais d'origine, et qui, durant leur 
mission en terre sainte, se trouvent sous la protection speciale de la France, 


sont les principalis fauteurs dc cetto rivalite si peu evangelique, en s'elevant 
sans cesse des pretentions surla possession exclusive et la garde du St. Sepulcre 
et en invoquant en leur faveur les traites de Francois I avec la Porte et 
meme les souvenirs des Baudouin et de Godefroi. 

Enclosure in Russian Mem. of October 1840. 

1. Publication d'un nouveau Hatti Scherif avec pleine confirmation de 
tous ceux qui ont et6 emanes sous les regnes anterieurs en faveur de l'figlise 
et du Clerge de Jerusalem. 

2. Nomination d'un Pacha ou moschir de la Palestine, homme de sens 
et de justice, qui fixerait sa residence, soit a Jerusalem, soit a Jaffa, avec 
une autorite civile et militaire, suffisante pour y maintenir le bon ordre et 
pour faire respecter les lieux de sa jurisdiction par les Bedouins du desert qui, 
n'etant plus contenus par la crainte des troupes figyptiennes, recommenceront 
probablement bientot leurs brigandages habituels sur les couvents Chretiens 
des environs de Jerusalem et sur les cara vanes des pelerins que la devotion 
appelle des pays les plus eloignes. 

3. Defense positive au Clerge Grec comme a celui des Catholiques et des 
Armeniens, de renouveler leurs dissensions anciennes et souvent pueriles en 
cherchant a se calomnier mutuellement et a s'exclure des eglises et des oratoireB, 
dont les Hatti Cheriffs precites ont fixe la possession a chacune de ces com- 

4. Defense severe au Mollah et au Cadi de Jerusalem de ranconner les 
religieux et les superieurs des couvens, toutes les fois que ces ecclesiastiques 
ont recours a la justice locale, ou qu'ils cherchent a se disculper de quelque 

5. La crainte de ces memes avanies et les frais considerables d'installa- 
tion, auxquels etaient exposes les patriarches de Jerusalem toutes les fois 
qu'ils se rendaient dans lour diocese, ayant oblige depuis quelques annees 
ces prelats a sojourner a Constantinople, en laissant a leurs vicaires le 
gouvernement de leur eglise, la Porte ferait aujourd'hui un acte de 
politique et d'equite a la fois, en accordant au patriarche actuel d'autorisa- 
tion et les facilites dont il peut avoir besoin, pour se rendre sur les lieux 
de sa jurisdiction spirituelle, et veiller de pres a la discipline de ses subor- 
donnes et au redressement des desordres ou des abus, que les troubles recens 
et les changemens politiques survenus dans ces contres, peuvent y avoir 

6. Toute innovation dans 1'antique hierarchie de l'eglise d'Orient serait 
rejete comme dangereuse et inutile et toute reclamation de priorite ou de 
privilege de la part des religieux des autres communions, ne serait admise 
qu'apres un examen impartial et approfondi de la question. Dans les cas de 


oette nature, il semblerait que le tribunal le plus competent, a en juger, serait 
une commission ou conseil du Gouverneur de la province, du patriarche de 
Jerusalem, ou en son absence, de son vicaire, du superieur des ecclesias- 
tiques Armeniens et d'un commissaire ad hoc, choisi et nomme par la Porte 
parmi les prelats les mieux reputes de la nation Grecque etablis a 

Ce conseil pourrait aussi fixer aux deservans des cultes respectifs, les 
heures des prieres et des ceremonies, en regularisant d'une maniere equitable 
et definitive ce point qui a ete souvent un sujet de litige et qui a meme occa- 
sionne des rixes scandaleuses dans l'enceinte d'un Temple, oil l'union et 
l'humilite devraient regner constamment. 

7. La reparation des eglises et des couvens ruines ou endommages par 
le temps et les incendies, sera permise par les autorites locales, toutes les 
fois que les superieurs de ces communautes en demanderont 1 autorisation, et 
le Gouvernement n'exigera pas dans ces occasions des cadeaux ou des benefices 

8. Defense severe serait faite aux soldats Turcs preposes a la garde des 
portes de l'eglise qui renferme le Saint Sepulcre, de s'introduire dans l'anterieur 
du temple, sous pretexte d'y faire la police. Ces gardiens recevraient egale- 
ment 1'ordre de temoigner tous les egards et tout le respect qui sont dus au 
patriarche et a ses delegues. 

9. Pour ce qui concerne plus specialement les pelerins Russes qui visitent 
chaque annee les lieux saintes, la sublime Porte serait invitee a prescrire a ces 
officiers civils et militaires de leur accorder toute protection et assistance. 
Et afin que ces voyageurs, etrangers pour la plupart aux usages et a la langue 
du pays, ne soient exposes a des avanies ou a des retards dans Paccomplisse- 
ment de leurs voaux, le consul de S.M. Imperiale residant a Jaffa aura 
l'autorisation d'accompagner, toutes les fois qu'il le jugera necessaire, la 
caravane des pelerins de sa nation et de veiller sur eux pendant le terns de 
leur sejour a Jerusalem. 

10. Les religieux de la plupart des nations chretiennes possedent a 
Jerusalem des etablissements pieux ou ils se reunissent, soit pour y demeurer, 
soit pour y celebrer les ceremonies de leur rit dans leur propre langue. 

Les ecclesiastiques Russes sont seuls prives de cet avantage, et doivent 
par consequent recourir, toutes les fois qu'ils visitent la terre sainte, a l'hospita- 
lite et a l'assistance spirituelle de leurs co-religionaires les ecclesiastiques Grecs. 
II serait de toute justice que la Porte autorisat le Patriarche d'assigner une 
des eglises ou monasteres de la ville a l'usage exclusif du clerge et des pelerins 
Russes, et que les autorites civiles et militaires du pays eussent 1'ordre precis 
de reconnaitre et de respecter cet etablissement, comme etant place 
sous la protection speciale de la Russie et sur le surveillance de son 


Memorandum delivered by the Austrian Government to the Prussian Government 

in October 1840. 

Les succes obtenus en Syrie qu iont amene la soumission de Mehemet Ali 
et la determination deSaHautesse de la faire suivre par l'investituredu Pacha 
d'Egypte du Gouvernement hereditaire de cette Province viennent de mettre 
au grand jour le resultat vers lequel tendaient les transactions de Londres, 
dictees par les voeux uniformes des Puissances Chretiennes, d'assurer la paix 
politique de FEurope par le maintien de l'independance et de l'integrite de 
l'Empire Ottoman qui devait ressortir du reglement definitif des rapports 
entre la Sublime Porte et le Gouvernement de l'Egypte. La Syrie qui avait 
ete placee pendant quelque terns sous la domination de ce dernier et avait 
offert aux etrangers une securite analogue a celle qu'ils trouvaient en Egypte, 
pendant que la population indigene Syrienne se voyant assimilee a celle de 
cette province et menacee de perdre toutes les conditions d'un etat social 
tout different et base sur des lois positives, des transactions historiques et des 
habitudes gouvernementales garantJssant la propriety, la liberte du commerce, 
&c., &c. ; la Syrie rentree maintenant par les succes des armees du Sultan et 
de ses allies sous la domination du Grand Seigneur, reclame les soins les plus 
assidus du Gouvernement Ottoman, afin d'oter tout pretexte raisonnable a 
ceux qui voudraient deverser un blame sur les resultats obtenus en 1840, 
en alleguant que la condition de cette Province interessante, aurait empire a 
leur suite. 

Les Puissances qui ont prete leurs conseils et leurs secours a S.H. dans 
le but invariable d'assurer l'independance de son pouvoir et l'integrite de 
son Empire contre les usurpations d'un sujet rebelle, doivent abandonner 
maintenant au Sultan le soin de faire participer ses sujets en Syrie aux bien- 
veillantes dispositions pour ses peuples, enoncees des le commencement de 
son regne par le Hat de Gulhane ; et si leurs conseils doivent tendre a hater 
leur realisation, elles auront dans les voies d'une sage politique, a en surveiller 

Mais le fait meme, nouveau dans 1'histoire, du secours porte par des 
Puissances Chretiennes au Grand Seigneur contre un sujet rebelle, auquel 
l'opinion publique attribuait le merite d'avoir procure, dans les pays soumis 
a sa domination de fait, aux Chretiens tant indigenes qu'etrangers plus de 
securite pour leurs personnes et une plus grande tolerance que celles qu'ils 
y trouvaient auparavant, impose a ces Puissances comme devoir de conscience 
de peser murement les moyens pour epargner tant au Grand Seigneur, leur 
allie, qu'a Elles-memes, le blame qui pourrait ressortir pour Elles, si la condi- 
tion des Chretiens en Syrie allait se presenter sous un jour moins favorable, a 
la suite de la reintegration de cette Province sous la domination directe du 


Grand Seigneur. C'est pour obvier a eette facheuse eventuality que le Cabinet 
Imperial soumet a ses Allies les considerations suivantes : 

Les Chretiens en Syrie sont ou fixes dans le pays, ou ils y resident tempo- 
rairement. Les premiers constitues en corps de nations, comme Maronites, 
Armeniens, &c, &c, jouissent d'une existence politique decoulant de capitula- 
tions, traites, privileges, &c, &c, et se trouvent sous des Chefs ressortant de 
ces derniers ; la Sublime Porte vient d'enoncer sa ferme volonte de donner a 
cet etat de choses, les developpements et la fixite qu'il reclame et pour lequel 
ces Populations ont acquis un nouveau titre a la suite du devouement qu'elles 
viennent de montrer pour rentrer sous la domination legitime. 

Une autre partie de la population sedentaire Chretienne est repandue 
dans le reste du pays, soumise aux lois generates et protegee par le Hat de 
Gulhane. Elle ne saurait demander que la stricte observation de ces disposi- 
tions par les autorites locales, et toute la tendance du Gouvernement Ottoman 
est la pour la leur assurer dans l'avenir. 

La population Chretienne transitoire se compose en partie de ceux qui 
y arrivent comme etrangers pour leurs affaires de commerce, les traites existant 
avec les differentes Puissances et la protection consulaire assurent leur condi- 
tion. Mais la Syrie renferme les lieux que l'origine de la Religion Chretienne 
a sanctifies pour toujours et ou la piete des fideles a etabli de nombreuses 
fondations et qui ont attire de tous terns de nombreux pelerins; ces fondations 
et ces pelerins ont joui depuis F occupation Mahometane de nombreux privileges, 
qui, a partir de 1059 jusqu'en 1803, se sont succedes et dont 1'effet n'a pu etre 
suspendu ou contrarie que par le fait des autorites locales Musulmanes, qui, 
au lieu de se conformer aux dispositions souveraines et a l'esprit de la legisla- 
tion et du centre, gardiennes de la foi juree, et favorables a une tolerance 
conforme aux principes du Coran et a un Gouvernement eclaire, se sont laissees 
egarer par un esprit de lucre et de partialite. 

II parait done que Taction tutelaire du centre du Gouvernement, qui doit 
vouloir le maintien des concessions faites, des privileges donnes, &c, &c., 
a manque jusqu'ici d'organes propres pour obvier a ces abus, et que le but 
special, dont ils sont Tobjet, la protection des lieux saints et des pelerins de 
toute la Chretiente qui vont les visiter, ne saurait etre atteint, tant qu'il ne 
formerait qu'une des attributions des administrations ordinaires ; ne serait-ce 
pas ici le cas pour que la Porte se decidat a nommer un employe special, afin 
d'assurer le maintien des anciens privileges et l'execution des dispositions du 
Hat de Gulhane a l'egard des lieux saints, et les Chretiens qui forment la 
population sedentaire et mouvante Chretienne de ces lieux ? 

Cet employe d'un rang assez eleve pour assurer sa position et garantir 
les attributions de sa place vis-a-vis l'autorite du Pacha revetu du Gouverne 
ment civil et militaire, cet employe charge directement de tout ce qui aurait 
rapport aux lioux saints et aux pelerins et mis en contact avec les repre- 


sentans des Gouvernemens Chretiens nommes ad hoc, qui, sous la denomi- 
nation de Procureurs, auraient a soutenir les droits de leurs nationaux sous 
le point de vue confessionnel ; cet employe place pour sa personne en rap- 
port direct avec le centre du Gouvernement a Constantinople, ne recevant 
d'ordres que de la oil toute reclamation possible contre lui et tout appel 
en derniere instance s'adresserait egalement par les organes diplomatiques 
des Puissances Chretiennes, repondrait a un besom qu'il est facile de pres- 
sentir des ce jour, et dont l'experience demontrera ou l'utilite, s'il est nomme 
a terns, ou la necessite si Ton tarde a y pourvoir. 

II ne s'agit pas de faire du nouveau pour le fond ; il s'agit de maintenir 
des privileges, et de regulariser de nouveau ce qui a existe et ce qui est tombe 
en desuetude dans le cours des siecles. Le pelerin religieux est respectable 
aux yeux du croyant, le gardien des lieux saints ne Test pas moins, le Gouverne- 
ment central et l'esprit religieux du peuple le reconnaissent et le sentent 
egalement ; ce n'est que les abus des passions et des positions subalternes 
qui ont fait et qui font le mal et auxquels il s'agit d'oppnser la digue d'une 
entente entre les Puissances et la Porte qui aurait pour objet de regulariser 
Taction d'une autorite bien organisee dependant directement du centre 
de l'Empire, autorite qui ne saurait avoir un autre interet que celui de 
repondre an but de son institution. 

(F.O. Docs. 64/235.) 

Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palmerston (Extract). 

St. Petersburg, 

^February 23, 1841. 
My Lord, — . . . The memorandum of Prince Metternich, suggesting 
the establishment of a Turkish Commissioner in the Holy Land, for the 
protection of Christian Pilgrims, and Travellers, and proposing a joint, or 
simultaneous application from the European Powers to the Porte, in which 
France might take a part, and thus be drawn out of her isolated position, 
has been coldly received by the Russian Government. Count Xesselrode 
said it did not appear to him a necessary or desirable measure, and that 
the Consuls in Syria were adequate to protect the Europeans, whom Com- 
merce, piety, or curiosity might attract to that Country. . . , 

The Emperor and his Ministers seem to think that age, and a great 
sense of the responsibility that is upon him, have of late much increased 
Prince Metternich's natural caution and timidity. 

I have the Honour to be with the Highest Respect, My Lord, 

Your Lordship's most obedient Humble Servant, 

The Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B. 

(F.O. Docs. 63/271.) 


Memoire of the King of Prussia dated February 24, 1841, delivered to Lord 
Palmerston by Baron Biilow. 

Les evenements importants qui viennent de s'aocomplir en Orient, 
ont replace sous l'autorite souveraine du Sultan la Palestine et y ont 
retabli l'etat politique qui existait avant l'oocupation de Mehemet Ali. Ce 
n'est pas par ses propres moyens que le Sultan a reussi a expulser son vassal 
rebelle de cette contree, berceau du christianisme et cher a toutes les com- 
munions de la grande Eglise chretienne. Le chef de la religion musulmane 
doit ce succes a un Traite que quatre des Puissances chretiennes ont conclu 
avec lui et qui a recu son execution par la valeur chevaleresque de militaires 
Chretiens. Plus le noble desinteressement des Pu'ssances qui ont porte 
secours a l'Empereur des Ottomans, leur four, it des titres a sa reconnais- 
sance moins il peut etre douteux que ces memes Puissances sont pleinement 
en droit de reclamer de ce souverain des concessions dans un but pure- 
ment spirituel et uniquement destinees a relever 1'exercice du culte chretien 
de la triste condition ou il se trouve dans la contree meme qui 1'a vu 

Le Roi, notre auguste maitre, a saisi cette idee. Profondement 
attache a ses convictions religieuses et penetre de ses devoirs comme Prince 
chretien, Sa Majeste se reconnait dans le concours de la Prusse aux stipula- 
tions du 15 Juillet 1839 un droit et se sent la vocation de signaler a l'attention 
des autres Puissances chretiennes l'opportunite du moment actuel et les 
precieuses facilites qu'il offre, pour obtenir du Grand-Seigneur l'amelioration 
du sort des chretiens qui habitent la Terre sainte, l'affranchissement de 
leur culte et l'etablissement d'institutions qui garantissent a l'avenir aux 
Chretiens de toutes les confessions le libre acces des lieux. objets de leur 
veneration et temoins des evenemens sur lesquels repose l'esperance de leur 
salut eternel. 

Sa Majeste est persuadee que les autres Souverains partageront les senti- 
ments qu'Elle professe Elle-meme. D'ailleurs il est incontestable que depuis 
une demi-siecle, les esprits les plus eleves ont deja plaide la cause que le Roi, 
notre auguste maitre, recommande a la sollicitude des grandes Cours 
Europeennes. II serait superflu de citer des noms, mais le nombre et la 
qualite des voyageurs de toutes les nations et de toutes les confessions 
chretiennes, qui affluent a Jerusalem, attestent deja que la Chretiente preud 
toujours un vif interet aux lieux saints et que eet int6ret, loin de se refroidir, 
se ravive avec le progres que l'esprit religieux fait en Europe. 

En eomptant avec une entiere assurance sur les sympathies de SS.MM. 
l'Empereur d'Autriche, de Russie et de la Reine de la Grande Bretagne 
pour les voeux qu'il forme a ce sujet, le Roi, notre auguste maitre, Leur 
fait proposer de faire valoir aupres de la Porte Ottomane les immenses 


services qu'elles viennent de lui rendre, pour l'engager a conclure avec les 
grandes Puissances Europeennes un arrangement qui place les villes saintes 
de Jerusalem, Bethlehem et Nazareth, sauf les droits de souverainete du 
Sultan, sous la protection commune de ces Puissances. 

D'apres les idees de Sa Majeste 1'arrangement a conclure porterait 

1. Les populations chretiennes des dites villes, les eglises, couvents, 
hospitaux qui en dependent, ainsi que les pelerins, les savants, les artistes, 
les artisans Chretiens, &c, &c, qui y feraient un sejour passager, obtien- 
draient des immunites et des franchises telles que l'intervention des autorites 
turques dans leur administration interieure fut exclue. Ces immunite.s 
et franchises seraient cependant accordtes sans prejudice des droits de 
Souverainete du Sultan. 

2. Les habitans chretiens des dites villes cesseraient d'appartenir a 
la categorie de Rayahs ; ils seraient a 1'avenir exclusivement justiciables, 
quant a leur personnes et quant a leur proprietes, des Residents des cinq 
grandes Puissances Europeennes, de maniere que leurs obligations envers 
la Porte se reduiraient a un tribut dont le montant annuel serait acquitte 
par la communaute (non par les individus). 

3. Le propriete des lieux saints a Jerusalem, Bethlehem et Nazareth 
passerait aux cinq grandes Puissances chretiennes et ferait 1'objet d'un 
arrangement special a conclure avec ceux qui se trouvent maintenant en 
possession de ces localites. 

4. Les chretiens habitant soit pour toujours soit temporairement les 
villes saintes, se formeraient d'apres les differentes confessions, en autant 
de corps speciaux, catholiques-romains, grecs, evangeliques. Les Armenien.s 
et les Syriens se joindraient au premier ou au second de ces corps, scion 
leur rit actuel. Chacun de ces corps serait considere comme une com- 
munaute speciale legalement constitute. Toutes les communautes jouiraient 
de droits fixes d'avance a l'egard des lieux saints ; la communaute 6vang(i- 
lique serait autorisee a etablir un culte selon ses rits, a fonder un hospital, 
&c, &c. Les Chretiens de cette confession seraient admis a faire leur 
devotion dans l'eglise du St. Sepuk-re et dans la Basilique de Bethlehem, 
dont les parties seraient specialement destinees a leur usage. 

5. La direction des communautes serait confiee a trois Residents. Celui 
de la communaute catholique serait a la nomination de FAutriche et de la 
France, la Russie nommerait le Resident pour la communaute grecque ; 
la Grande Bretagne et la Prusse celui des protestants. Chaque Puissance 
qui nommerait un resident, mettrait a si disposition un garde de 60 soldats. 
La formation de ses gardes ferait 1'objet d'une stipulation ulterieure. 

On choisirait quelques points pour les fortifier autant qu'il le faudrait, 
pour les mettre a l'abri d'une incursion subite de hordes arabes et pour que 


les communautes chretiennes pussent s'en servir pour mettre en surete lea 
vases sacres precieux et leurs proprietes en general. 

L'ancienne place du temple et la mosquee d'Omar resteraier.t dans tous 
les cas aux Turcs. 

On pourrait encore soumettre a une deliberation commune, si les cinq 
Puissances ne stipuleraient pas egalement en faveur des Juifs domieilies a 
Jerusalem et de ceux qui s'y rendent en pelerinage, des immunites analogues 
a celles a obtenir pour les Chretiens. 

Covering Letter from Baron Billow to Lord Pahnersion, March 6, 1841 (Extract). 

... II faudra done faire obtenir aux membres de l'eglise evangelique 
(sans distinction des communions speciales qui la composent) la propriete 
exclusive d'une place distincte pres du St. Sepulcre de Jerusalem et dans l'eglise 
du meme nom pour y faire leurs prieres et pour y celebrer leur culte. Cette 
place serait mise sous la protection speciale des deux Puissances qui en garan- 
tiraient la possession paisible a la communaute protestante. II s'agira aussi 
d'acquerir pour cette communaute le mont Sion afin d'y batir un hospice pour 
tous ceux qui visiteront ces contres par des motifs religieux ou scientifiques, 
d'etablir des presbyteres et des hospitaux, de fonder des ecoles pour les enfans 
de la population protestante (peut-etre aussi pour les enfans juifs), enfin de 
construire des ouvrages de fortification dont la faible garnison, mentionnee 
dans le memoire, aura besoin pour se defendre. . . . 

(F.O. Docs., 64/235.) 

Lord Beauvale to Lord Pahnersion. 

Vienna, March 2nd, 1841. 

My Lord, — The King of Prussia has sent His Minister at this Court a 
proposition for regulating the position of the Christians in Syria, which, if it 
were acted upon, would in Prince Metternich's opinion throw that Country 
into inextricable confusion. His Highness transmitted a few days back a 
memorandum on the subject to London which He persists in regarding as 
establishing the only advantageous mode of treating the question, and as He 
purposes drawing up a statement of his objections to the Prussian pro- 
position, He earnestly entreats that no acquiescence may be given to any 
part of it on behalf of the British Government until those objections have 
been submitted to Your Lordship. 

I have the honor to be with the greatest respect, My Lord, 

Your Lordship's Most Obedient Humble Servant, 

The Viscount Palmerston, G C.B. 

(F.O. Docs., 7/29S.) 


Lord Palmerslon to Lord Beauvale (Draft). 

F.O., March llffc 1841. 
My Lord, — With reference to Your Excellency's despatch No. 38 of the 
2nd instant reporting Prince Metternich's objections to the Prussian scheme 
for regulating the position of the Christians in Syria, I have to inform Your 
Excellency that H.M.'s Government agree very much with Prince Metternich's 
as to that scheme. P. 

(F.O. Docs. 1/296.) 

Memorandum of Austrian Government delivered to Lord Palmerston by Prince 
Esterhazy, March 31, 1841. 

Sur le Memorandum du 3 Fevrier " 3 et le memoire Prussien, relativement 
a la protection des Chretiens en Syrie. 

La difference entre le memorandum du 3 fev. et le memoire prussien 
consiste en ce que le premier fournit un moyen pratique pour porter remide 
au mal existant, sans entreprendre une reforme dangereuse, tandis que l'autre 
tend a introduire un nouvel ordre de choses en faveur de la representation de 
l'Eglise evangelique, par des moyens inexecutables. 

Le travail du Sfevr. se base sur la verite, que ni les populations chretiennes 
sedentaires et mouvantes, ni les couvens des trois confessions, catholique, 
grecque et armenienne, n'ont jamais eu a se plaindre d'un manque de 
tolerance musulmane. C'est un t6moignage irrecusable qu'on peut recueillir 
sur les lieux aupres de ceux meme qui y sont les plus interesses. 

Des firmans sans nombre, relatifs a des privileges et a la donation de lieux 
saints aux environs de Jerusalem, Bethlehem et Nazareth se trouvent deposes 
aux archives des differens couvens, et s'ils n'otit point ete mis en execution et 
forment le sujet de disputes continuelles entre les trois confessions, la faute 
n'en est pas au Couvernement Turc, mais uniquement a la venalite des 
Musselims, comme autorites locales. 

L'execution des firmans toujours mise arbitrairement a un prix tree 
eleve est devenu de la part des Musselims une speculation financiere. 

La disunion regrettable qui regne entre les confessions, ou comme on les 
appelle sur les lieux, les trois nations, exploite cette corruptibility, tantot pour 
suspendre l'execution d'un firman jalouse, tantot pour obtenir moyennant 
l'intervention du Musselim un second firman annullant le premier, ce qui 
a surtout lieu, lorsqu'il s'agit de la donation d'un lieu saint. En pareil cas 

,33 This Memorandum is identical with the Austrian Memorandum of 
October 1840, which at the time was only communicated to the Prussian Govern- 
ment (supra, pp. 111-113). 


la confession la plus offrante est sure d'atteindre son but et rien n'est plus a 
desirer que la punition severe du trafic illicite et honteux, qui se pratique avec 
les firmans et l'irrevocabilite de ceux une fois emanes. 

C'est done en parfaite connoissance du veritable siege du mal, que le 
memorandum du 3 fevrier a cherche le remede dans le renfort de V action tutelaire 
du, Oouv. par un employe sultanique special d'un rang assez eleve pour etre 
place a cote des Musselims ; employe qui serait charge directement de tout ce qui 
aurait rapport aux lieux saints et aux pelerins — qui serait mis en contact avec les 
Bepresentans des Gouvernemens Chretiens nommes ad hoc, sous la denomination 
de procureurs et qui ne recevrait d'ordres que de Constantinople ou les plaintes 
elevees conlre lui seraient portees a la connoissance du Gouvernement dans la 
voie diplomatique. 

Le memoir e prussien tendant a etablir sur les lieux une representation de 
l'eglise evangelique et sa participation aux fondations existantes, suscite une 
question toute nouvelle, dont la portee n'est pas a calculer. 

Sans eonsiderer l'opposition de Rome, du St. Synode de St. Petersbourg, 
et du Patriarchat grec a Constantinople le memoire suggere des moyens qui, 
loin de porter remede au mal existant, feraient naitre des nouvelles complica- 
tions et accroitre la desunion parmi les confessions chretiennes. Ce regrettable 
resultat serait surtout amene par les points suivans du memoire prussien : 

A. La propriete. des lieux saints a Jerusalem, Bethlehem et Nazareth pas- 
serait aux cinq grandes Puissances. 

Mais cette propriete est aux differentes confessions, qui deja jalouses de 
la partager entre trois, ne voudraient certainement pas faire une cession de 
droits acquis, en faveur d'une quatriime pretendant. 

B. Les Chretiens evangeliques auraient dans l'eglise du St. Sepulcre a 
Jerusalem et dans celle de Bethlehem des parties specialement destinees a leur 

Mais dans ces deux eglises chaque pouce de terrain est dispute par les 
trois confessions. Toute la Basilique de Bethlehem fut adjugee, il y a 80 ans, 
aux Grecs ; en vertu d'un firman obtenu par des sommes considerables, eux 
et les Armeniens possedent seuls la propriete de la Grotte de la Nativite ; les 
moins franciscains n'osent point y dire la messe, et il n'y a que l'autel de la 
Ste. Creche qui appartienne a ces derniers. Dans le temple de Jerusalem 
existent les memes subdivisions exclusives. Chaque chapelle forme pour ainsi 
dire une monopolo ; celle du Calvaire est partagee en deux — l'autel des Grecs 
occupant la place de l'exaltation de la croix, celui des Catholiques celle du 
crucifiement. Comment faire entrer une quatrieme confession dans un 
partage deja si conteste ? La repartition toute faite de localites dont la pro- 
priete est aussi hautement appreciee par la confession qui la possede qu'enviee 
par la confession qui voudrait Fusurper, s'opposerait du reste a une pareille 


C. Chaque Puissance, qui nommerait un resident, mettrait a sa disposition 
60 soldats. 

A part d'autres considerations qui rendent ce moyen inadmissible, il 
foumirait des armes a une guerre de religion en petit qui, vu les elemens de 
jalousie et de discorde deja existans, ne manquerait pas d'eclater. 

(F.O. Docs. 7/302.) 

British Jews and Palestine, 1841-1843. 
Colonel Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore. 

June Uth, 1841. 

My dear Sir Moses, — I have not yet had the pleasure of hearing from 
you, but I would fain hope that my letters have reached you safe. 

I enclose you a petition which has been drawn by the Brothers Harari, 
in which they state their claims and their earnest desire to be immediately 
under British protection. I am sorry to say that such a measure is much 
required even now, not only for them, but also for all the Jews in Damascus. 

They are still liable to persecutions similar to those from which, through 
your active and generous intervention, they have so lately escaped. The 
Christians still regard them with malevolence, and the statement in the peti- 
tion enclosed is perfectly correct. 

I cannot conceal from you my most anxious desire to see your country- 
men endeavour once more to resume their existence as a people. I consider 
the object to be perfectly attainable. But, two things are indispensably 
necessary. Firstly, that the Jews will themselves take up the matter univer- 
sally and unanimously. Secondly, that the European Powers will aid them 
in their views. It is for the Jews to make a commencement. Let the principal 
persons of their community place themselves at the head of the movement. 
Let them meet, concert and petition. In fact the agitation must be simul- 
taneous throughout Europe. There is no Government which can possibly 
take offence at such public meetings. The result would be that you would 
conjure up a new element in Eastern diplomacy — an element which under 
such auspices as those of the wealthy and influential members of the Jewish 
community could not fail not only of attracting great attention and of 
exciting extraordinary interest, but also of producing great events. 

Were the resources which you all possess steadily directed towards 
the regeneration of Syria and Palestine, there cannot be a doubt but that, 
under the blessing of the Most High, those countries would amply repay 
the undertaking, and that you would end by obtaining the sovereignty 
of at least Palestine. That the present attempt to prop up the Turkish 
Empire as at present constituted is a miserable failure, we who see what 


is going on around us must at once acknowledge. What turn events will 
take no one can possibly tell, but of this I am perfectly certain that these 
countries must be rescued from the grasp of ignorant and fanatical rulers, 
that the march of civilisation must progress, and its various elements of 
commercial prosperity must be developed. It is needless to observe that 
such will never be the case under the blundering and decrepit despotism 
of the Turks or the Egyptians. Syria and Palestine, in a word, must be 
taken under European protection and governed in the sense and according 
to the spirit of European administration. It must ultimately come to this. 
What a great advantage it would be, nay, how indispensably necessary, 
when at length the Eastern Question comes to be argued and debated with 
this new ray of light thrown around it, for the Jews to be ready and pre- 
pared to say : " Behold us here all waiting, burning to return to that land 
which you seek to remould and regenerate. Already we feel ourselves a 
people. The sentiment has gone forth amongst us and has been agitated 
and has become to us a second nature ; that Palestine demands back again 
her sons. We only ask a summons from these Powers on whose counsels 
the fate of the East depends to enter upon the glorious task of rescuing 
our beloved country from the withering influence of centuries of desolation 
and of crowning her plains and valleys and mountain-tops once more, with 
all the beauty and freshness and abundance of her pristine greatness." I say 
it is for the Jews to be ready against such a crisis in diplomacy. I therefore 
would strenuously urge this subject upon your calm consideration, upon 
the consideration of those who, by their position and influence amongst 
you are most likely to take the lead in such a glorious struggle for national 
existence. I had once intended to have addressed the Jews here in their 
Synagogue upon the subject, but I have reflected that such a proceeding 
might have awakened the jealousy of the local Government. I have, how- 
ever, prepared a rough petition which will be signed by all the Jews here 
and in other parts of Syria, and which I shall then forward to you. Probably 
two or three months will elapse first. There are many considerations to 
be weighed and examined as the question develops itself — but a beginning 
must be made — a resolution must be taken, an agitation must be commenced, 
and where the stake is " Country and Home " where is the heart that will 
not leap and bound to the appeal ? 

I am the Resident Officer at Dam.' scus until further order. 
Believe me to be, Dear Sir Moses, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Chas. H. Churchill. 

Before closing my letter, I cannot avoid offering one or two further 


Supposing that you and your colleagues should at once and earnestly 
interest yourselves upon this important subject of the recovery of jour 
ancient country, it appears to me (forming my opinions upon the present 
attitude of affairs in the Turkish Empire) that it could only be as subjects 
of the Porte that you could commence to regain a footing in Palestine. Your 
first object would be to interest the Five Great Powers in your views and 
to get them to advocate your view with the Sultan upon the clear under- 
standing that the Jews, if permitted to colonise any part of Syria and 
Palestine, should be under the protection of the Great Powers, that they 
should have the internal regulation of their own affairs, that they should 
be exempt from military service (except on their own account as a measure 
of defence against the incursions of the Bedouin Arabs), and that they should 
only be called upon to pay a tribute to the Porte on the usual mode of 

Ko doubt, such an undertaking will require Patriotism in the fullest 
sense of the word, energy and great perseverance. It will require large 
capital at the outset, but with good prospect of remuneration, returned 
after the lapse of a few years. 

In all enterprises men must be prepared to make great sacrifices, whether 
of time, health or resources. To reflect calmly before commencing an under- 
taking and once begun to carry it through, vanquishing, surmounting, 
triumphing over every obstacle, this is worthy of man's existence and 
carries with it its own reward, if the judgment is sound, the head clear and 
the heart honest. I humbly venture to give my opinion upon a subject, 
which no doubt has already occupied your thought — and the bare mention 
of which, I know, makes every Jewish heart vibrate. The only question 
is — when and how. 

The blessing of the Most High must be invoked on the endeavour. 
Political events seem to warrant the conclusion that the hour is nigh at 
hand when the Jewish people may justly and with every reasonable prospect 
of success put their hands to the glorious work of Xational Regeneration. 
If you think otherwise I shall bend at once to your decision, only begging 
you to appreciate my motive, which is simply an ardent desire for the welfare 
and prosperity of a people to whom we all owe our possession of those blessed 
truths which direct our minds with unerring faith to the enjoyment of 
another and better world. — C. H. C. 

I will keep you " au fait " of all that passes in this country if you wish it. 

\5th August, 1842. 
My dear Sir Moses, — I have delayed until now sending to you a 
written statement of my proposition regarding the Jews of Syria and 
Palestine partly because I knew you were absent last week from England 


and partly because I wished to keep the document by me for a few days- 
previous to committing it finally to your care. The subject, I am sure, must 
in your eyes appear most worthy of consideration, and I trust that when you 
have perused my paper and matured the contents in your mind, you will 
come to such a decision as will induce you to give my proposition your warmest 
support. It appears to me that it might with advantage be brought under 
the notice of the Jews on the Continent, and if this be your opinion, perhaps 
you could get my paper, which, as you will perceive, I have drawn up in the 
shape of an " address," translated into German and forwarded to your friends 
in Prussia and Germany. I do sincerely believe that were the Jews as a 
body, both in England and on the Continent of Europe, to so arrange as to 
present a joint application to the British Government in the sense I propose, 
they would have reason to rejoice hereafter that they had taken such a step. 

I have nothing more to add, as my Document, which I enclose, will 
express to you all I can say upon the subject. 

The only question that remains for your personal consideration is whether 
you possess the power of having the proposition laid before the leading Jews 
abroad as well as in England for their deliberate judgment. 

May I beg you to present my kind regards to Lady Montefiore, and 
believe me to be, 

Dear Sir Moses, 

Yours most sincerely, 

Chas. H. Churchill. 

Proposal of Colonel Churchill (Extract). 

Human efforts preceded by prayer and undertaken in faith the whole 
history of your nation shows to be almost invariably blessed. If such then 
be your conviction it remains for you to consider whether you may not in 
all humility, but with earnest sincerity and confiding hope direct your most 
strenuous attention towards the land of your Fathers with the view of doing 
all in your power to ameliorate the conditions of your brethren now residing 
there and with heartfelt aspiration of being approved by Almighty God 
whilst you endeavour as much as in you lies to render that Land once more 
a refuge and resting-place to such of your brethren scattered throughout the 
world as may resort to it. 

Hundreds and thousands of your countrymen would strain every effort 
to accomplish the means of living amidst those scenes rendered sacred by 
ancient recollections, and which they regard with filial affection, but the dread 
of the insecurity of life and property which has rested so long upon the soil of 
" Judea " has hitherto been a bar to the accomplishment of their natural 


My proposition is that the Jews of England conjointly with their brethren 
on the Continent of Europe should make an application to the British Govern- 
ment through the Earl of Aberdeen to accredit and send out a fit and proper 
person to reside in Syria for the sole and express purpose of superintending 
and watching over the interests of the Jews residing in that country. The 
duties and powers of such a public officer to be a matter of arrangement be- 
tween the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Committee of Jews 
conducting the negotiations. It is, I hope, superfluous for me to enlarge upon 
the incalculable benefit which would accrue to your nation at large were such 
an important measure to be accomplished, or to allude more than briefly 
to the spirit of confidence and revival which would be excited in the breasts 
of your fellow-countrymen all over the world were they to be held and acknow- 
ledged agents for the Jewish people resident in Syria and Palestine under the 
auspices and sanction of Great Britain. . . . 

..." God has put into my heart the desire to serve His ancient people. 
... I have discharged a duty imposed on me by my conscience." . . . 

Resolution of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. 

November Sth, 1842. 
That the President be requested to reply to Colonel Churchill to the effect 
that this Board, being appointed for the fulfilment of special duties and 
deriving its pecuniary resources from the contributions to the several con- 
gregations it represents, is precluded from originating any measures for 
carrying out the benevolent views of Colonel Churchill respecting the Jews of 
Syria, that this Board is fully convinced that much good would arise from 
the realisation of Colonel Churchill's intentions, but is of opinion that any 
measures in reference to this subject should emanate from the general body 
of the Jews throughout Europe, and that this Board doubts not that if the 
Jews of other countries entertain the proposition those of Great Britain 
would be ready and desirous to contribute towards it their most zealous 

Colonel Churchill to the Secretary of the Board of Deputies. 

Beyrout, Jany. Sth, 1843. 

Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the official Com- 
munication which the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been pleased 
to address to me. 

It affords me the greatest gratification to learn that the British Jews 
would zealously co-operate with the general body of their countrymen in 


endeavouring to procure the permanent amelioration of the condition of 
Jews in Syria and Palestine. 

I humbly venture to express a hope that the Board of Deputies will 
still continue to entertain this subject,and that it will not think it inexpedient 
to endeavour to ascertain the feelings and wishes of the Jews in the rest of 
Europe on a question so interesting and important, one in which is necessarily 
involved that of the prospective regeneration of their long-suffering and 
afflicted country. 

I beg leave to offer my best thanks and warmest acknowledgements to 
the Board of Deputies for the kind manner in which it has been pleased to 
receive my previous communication, and to assure it that my services are ever 
at its command. 

I have the honour to be, &c, 

Chas. Churchill. 

(Minute-Books of Board of Deputies, 1841-13.) 

The Entente Powers and Palestine, 1917. 

Extract from Agreement between Great Britain, France and Russia, dated 

February 21, 1917. 

" 5. . . . With a view to securing the religious interests of the Entente 
Powers, Palestine, with the Holy Places, is separated from Turkish territory 
and subjected to a special regime to be determined by agreement between 
Russia, France and England." 

(Manchester Guardian, Janaury 19, 1918.) 

Great Britain and Zionism, 1917. 

Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild. 

Foreign Office, 

November 2nd, 1917. 

Dear Lord Rothschild, — I have much pleasure in conveying to you, 
on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sym- 
pathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and 
approved by, the Cabinet : — 

" His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in 
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best 
endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly under- 


stood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious 
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and 
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." 

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge 
of the Zionist Federation. 

Yours sincerely, 

Arthur James Balfour. 

{Times, November 9, 1917.) 



The earliest appearance of the Jewish Question in international 
European politics — or rather the earliest reference to it in the British 
State Papers — happened in 1498, shortly after the great expulsion of 
the Jews from Spain. In that year Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain 
sent a mission to England on business connected with Prince Arthur's 
marriage. The mission was apparently instructed to deal with the 
Jewish Question. The envoys expressed to the King their sorrow 
that, while Spain had been purged of infidelity, Flanders and England 
were infested by that scourge. Thereupon, according to a dispatch 
from the chief of the mission, Henry VII, laying both hands on his 
breast, swore thathewould persecute without mercy any Jew or heretic 
that the King or Queen of Spain might point out in his dominions. 


De Carta delsoprior de Santa Cruz a SusAlts. (Sul-Prior of Santa Cruz to 
Ferdinand and Isabella, July 18, 1498). Extract. 

Acabada nuestra embasada hable al Rey de Inglaterra solo. . . . 

Al otro cabo que le dixe que en su Reyno y en Flandes estaban muchos 
conversos de los Reynos de V.A. y algunos fuydos por miedo de la Inquisicion 
y quan firmes V.A. estaban en su amistad y hermandad y que los sobrediehos 
siempre procuraban el contrario que le avisaban dello, holgo mucho de tal 
avis y dixo la mano puesta en los peehos que por la fe de su coraeon que no 
decia el de marranos mas del'mejor de su Reyno si contra lo que yo le decia 
algo le dixiese, no le oiria ni le ternia por suyo, y que si S.A. le mandaien airsar 
si en su tierra hay algun judio o herege que por la fe de su corazon et los 
castigaria bien. Fue esta habla larga y por ser nuevo oficial abrevie, huelga 
mucho el Rey de Inglaterra en fablar de la Princesa de Gales. . . . 

(Record Office : "Spanish Transcripts," Series I, vol. I, B. 205.) 



-Abdul Medjid, Sultan of Turkey, 96 
Aberdeen, Earl of, 18, 123 
Adler, Cyrus, 67, 70, 71 
Agreement, Anglo-Prussian (1841), 

Alexander I, Tsar, 12, 15 
Alexander II, Tsar, 78 
Alexander III, Tsar, 55 
Alexander, Bishop, 106 
Alexander, D. L., 51, 52, 54 
Algeciras, Conference of (1906), 54, 

88 ; Protocols, 98-99 
Allenby, General, 104 
Alliance Israelite, 59, 60, 89 
Almodovar del Rio, Due de, 98 
American-Jewish Committee, 89 
American House of Representatives, 

Resolution, 79 
American Senate, Resolution, 79-80 
American-Swiss Treaty (1855), 74 
" Anabaptisticum et Enthusiasticum 

Pantheon," 103 
Anarchists, 57 
Ancona, Jews of, 63 
Andrassy, Count, 30, 93 
Anglo-French Entente, 56 
Anglo-Jewish Association, 45, 51, 69, 

Anglo-Moorish Treaty (1856), 78, 83, 

Anglo-Prussian Agreement (1841), 

Anglo-Russian Treaty (1859), 80 
Anglo-Swiss Treaty (1855), 73 
Anglo-Turkish Treaty (1809), 84 
Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance, 57-62 
Appleton, John, 75 
Austria, 64, 65 

Austrian Instruction (1815), 71 
Austrian Jews, 7 

Balance of Power, The, 54 
Balfour, Arthur James, 124, 125 
Baltimore, Jews of, 74 
Bartholomei, Mr., 77 
Baruch, Jacob, 12 
Baxter, Nadir, 101 
Beaconsfleld, Earl of, 30, 103 
Beauvale, Lord, 106, 116, 117 
Belgium and Holland, Union of, 2 
Benchimol Family, 88, 89, 90, 91 
Berlin, Congress of (1878), 23-36, 52 
Berlin, Treaty of (1878), 24, 33 
Bernhardt, " Handbook of Treaties, 

&c," 74, 80, 83, 84, 87 
Bernstorff, Count, 16 
Bertie, Francis, 44, 45 
Bethlehem, 105 
Bismarck, Prince, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 

Bjoerkoe interview, 56, 62 
Blaine, James G. (U.S. Secretary of 

State), 54, 70, 78 
" Blue Laws," 77 
Boerne, Ludwig, 12 
Bohemia, Jews of, 7-11 
Brisac, J., 66, 67, 68, 72, 73 
Broglie, Due de, 66 
Brothers, Richard, 101 
Bucharest Commission, 20 
Bucharest, Treaty of (1913), 50 
Bulgaria, 26, 33 
Biilow, Baron, 105, 114, 116 
Bund, Jewish, 57, 59 
Bunsen, Baron, 106 
Buzaglo, David, 89, 91 




Canovas del Castillo, Sefior, 93, 94 
Capitulations, 3, 4, 83, 100 
Capodistrias, Count, 16 
Caratheodory Pacha, 26, 27, 31, 32 
Carlowitz, Treaty of (1699), 64, 71, 

Cassini, Count, 99 
Castlereagh, Viscount, 12, 13, 16 
Catharine of Braganza, Queen, 6 
Catherine of Russia, Empress, 76, 78 
" Ce que les Israelites de la Suisse 

doivent a la France," 66 
Charlemagne, Emperor, 3 
Charles II, King of England, 6 
Charles X, King of France, 65 
Chevalier, Michel, 67 
China, religious liberty in, 3 
Choate, Joseph H., 44 
Christendom, Peace of, 2 
Christian Missions, protection of, 3 
Christina, Queen of Sweden, 6 
Churchill, Colonel, C. H., 103, 119, 

120, 122, 123, 124 
Circular Note to Great Powers, 

American (1902), 44 
Clarendon, Earl of, 19, 67 
Clanricardc, Marquis of, 113 
Cobden, Richard, 67 
Cohn, Albert, 19 
Conferences : — 

Algeciras (1906), 54, 88 

Bucharest (1913), 45, 47, 48, 49 

Constantinople (1856), 20, 21, 23 

London (1830), 17, 52 

London (1912), 13, 45, 47 

Madrid (1880), 54, 88 

Ryswick (1697), 103 

St. Petersburg (1912-13), 45h17 
See also Protocols and Treaties 
Congresses : — 

Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), 15, 16 

Berlin (1878), 23, 25-33, 36 

Paris (1856), 18-23 

Vienna (1815), 3, 12-15 
See also Protocols and Treati?^ 
Consistoire Israelite, 66 

Consular Protection, 4, 82-85, 80-88 
Convention, Cyprus (1878), 107 
Convention of Paris (1858), 20, 21, 23 
Cremieux, Adolphe, 18, 102 
Cromwell, Oliver, 4, 6, 102 
Crowe, Sir Eyre, 51, 83 
Cyprus, 103 
Cyprus Convention (1878), 107 

Damascus, 120 

Daudet, Ernest, iir> 

" Decade Philosophique et Litter- 

aire," 104 
De Card, " Les Traites entre la 

France et le Maroc," 88 
Declaration on Palestine, British 

(1917), 124-5 
De Launay, Count, 29, 32, 53 
De Mello, Don Francisco Manuel, 6 
Deschamps, Emile, 59 
Despatch, American, to U.S. Minister 

at Athens (1902), 38 
Desprez, M., 26, 32, 33 
Dicey, Professor A: V., 5, 54 
D'Israeli, " Genius of Judaism," 101 
Dobrudja, 50 
Dohm, C. W., 15 

Eastern Roumelia, 26, 79 

Edict of Sultan of Morocco, 89, 92 

El Arish, 104 

Esterhazy, Prince, 117 

Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. 

Finch, Sir Henry, 100, 101 
Finn, James, 86, 102 ; "Records from 

Jerusalem Consular Chronicles," 85 
Fogg, Mr., 75 

Foreign Jews Protection Society, 64 
Foster, J. W, 70 
France, 65, 66 
Franchi, Cardinal, 93 



Franco-Moorish Reglement(1863), 88 
Franco-Swiss Treaty (1827), 71 
Franco-Swiss Treaty (1864), 73 
Franks, Aaron, 7, 8, 9 
Freemasons, 59, 60, 62 
Fuller, " A Pisgah Sight of Pales- 
tine," 100 

Holy Alliance, 12 

Holy Roman Empire, 100 

Hoskier, M., 55 

Izviestia, 56 
Izvolsky, A., 56, 62 

George II, King of England, 7-9 
German Jews, 12, 13 
Goldsmid, Sir Julian, 82 
Gortchacow, Prince, 28, 29, 30, 33 
Graetz, " Geschichte der Juden," 

Granville, Earl, 69 ; despatch of, 

Greece, Jews of, 17 
Grey, Sir Edward, 45, 46, 48, 51, 

52, 54, 69, 82 
Grey, Viscount (see Sir Edward) 
Guizot, 66, 105, 107 

Halhed, Nathaniel Brassey, M.P., 

Hammond, J., 86 

Hardenberg, Prince, 12, 13, 16 

Haroun al-Rashid, Khalif, 3 

Harrington, Lord, 11 

Hart, Moses, 7, 8, 9 

Hatti-Humayoun (1856), 19-22 

Hay, John (U.S. Secretary of State), 
37, 38, 43, 44; despatch on Ru- 
mania, 38-43 

Hay, Sir John Drummond, 85, 88 

Haymerle, Baron, 30 

Henry VII, King of England, 126 

Hervaille, 59 

Herzl, Theodor, 104 

" Histoire Diplomatique de l'Alliance 
Franco Russe," 55 

Holland, 7 

Holland, Jews of, 2, 3 

Holland, "The European Concert in 
the Eastern Question," 18,21,22 

Jackson, J. B. (U.S. Minister at 

Bucharest), 47 
Jaffa, 85 

James I, King of England, 101 
Jerusalem, 101, 104, 108, 109, 115, 

Jewish Board of Deputies, 12, 45, 

47, 51, 69, 86, 89, 103, 123, 124 
Jewish Bund, 57 
Jewish Conjoint Committee, 24, 45, 

46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 69, 82, 83 
" Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan 

States," 37 
Jewish Nationalism, 16 
" Jews and the War," 24, 45 
Jews in Bohemia, 7-11 
Jews in Foreign Countries, Status of, 

Jews in Morocco, 83-85, 87-99 
Jews in Rumania, 28-48 
Jews in Russia, 54 
Jews in Russia, American Despatch, 

76-78, 81-83 
Jews in Switzerland, 72-73 
" Jews in the Diplom; tic Correspond- 
ence of the U.S.," 70 
Jews, National Restoration of, 100- 

Jews of Baltimore, 74 
Joostens, Baron, 99 

Kamabowsky, 105, 106 

Kluber, " Akten des Wiener Kon- 

gresses," 14 
Kohler, Max, 37 
Koutzo-Vlachs, 50 



Lamsdorf, Count, 55, 56, 62 
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 37, 38 
Lassalle, Ferdinand, 59 
" Legal Sufferings of Jews in Russia," 

Lemoine, " Napoleon et les Juifs," 

Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, Prince, 17 
Leven, Narcisse, 24, 85 
Lewisohn, Leon, 69, 81 
Lieven, Count. 18 
Loeb, Isidor, 24 
Loewe, " Diaries of Sir Moses Monte- 

fiore," 89, 92 
London, Treaty of (1840), 106 
Louis Philippe, King of France, 66 : 

speech of (1835), 73 
Ludolf, Count, 95 

Madrid, Conference of (1880), 54, 

88 ; Protocols, 90-98 
Madrid, Treaty of (1880), 91 
Maiorescu, Titu (Rumanian Prime 

Minister), 46, 47, 49, 50 
Maria Theresa, Empress, 7-11 
Marranos (or Crypto-Jews), 63, 64 
Marx, Karl, 59 
Mehemet Ali, 102 
" Memorandum on the Grievances of 

British Subjects of the Jewish 

Faith," 69 
" Memorandum on Treaty Rights of 

Jews of Rumania " (1908), 45 
Memorandum (Palestine), Austrian 

(1840), 111-113; (1841), 117-119 
Memorandum (Palestine), Prussian 

(1841), 114-116 
Memorandum (Palestine) of Russian 

Government (1840), 107-110 
Menasseh ben Israel, 6 
Mendes da Costa, Fernando, 6 
Metternich, Prince, 12, 13, 16, 113, 

116, 117, 118 
Milan, Prince, 30 
Mohammed Vargas, Cid, 96, 97 

Moldavia, Jews in, 19, 21 
Moldavians and Wallachians, 23 
Montefiore, Claude G., 51, 52, 54 
Montefiore, Joseph Meyer, 86 
Montefiore, Lady, 122 
Montefiore, Sir Moses, 18, 89, 95, 102, 

103, 119, 121 
Montenegro, 30, 33 
Montmoren y Laval, 18 
Moravia, Jews of, 7 
Morocco, Jews of, 70 
Morocco, Religious Liberty in, 89-99 
Mount Athos, 31 
Muley-el-Hassan, Sultan of Morocco, 

97, 98 

Nahon, Moses, 89, 91 

Napier, Lord, 81 

Napoleon I, Emperor, 102, 104 

Napoleon III, Emperor, 19 

Nasi, Donna Gracia, 6, 63 

Nasi, Don Joseph (see Naxos, Duke of) 

" National Treatment," 65, 68 

Nationality, Jewish, 64 

Naxos, Duke of, 63 

Nazareth, 105 

Neapolitan prison horrors, 5 

Nelidow, Actual Privy Councillor, 58 

Nesselrode, Count, 16, 113 

Nicholas II, Tsar, 56, 62 

Nicolson, Sir Arthur, 98 

'' Nikky- Willy " correspondence, 55 

Nina, Cardinal, 94 

Oliphant, Lawrence, 103 
Omar, Mosque of, 116 
Ottoman Empire, Jews in, 3, 4 

Palestine Declaration, British 

(1917), 124-125 
Palestine, Jews in, 70 
Palestine Question, 100-125 
Palestine, Russian Jews in, 84, 85 



Palestine, Secret Agreement (1917), 
107, 124 

Palestine Memorandum, Austrian 
(1840), 111-113 ; (1841). 117-119 

Palestine Memorandum, Prussian 
(1841), 114-116 

Palestine Memorandum, Russian 
(1840), 107-110 

Palmerston, Viscount, 102, 105, 106, 
113, 114, 116, 117 

Paris, Convention of (1858), 23 

Pas^arowitz, Treaty of (1718), 71, 

Passport Question in Russia, 6? 

Paul IV, Pope, 63, 64 

Paulli, Holger, 103 

Peace of Christendom, 2 

Peace of Westphalia, 2, 3, 6 

Petition concerning Jews of Bohemia, 

Piggott, Sir Francis, " Exterritori- 
ality," 84 

Pogroms, 62 

Poland, Jews of, 6 

Poland, Protestants of, 4 

Ponsonby, Lord, 106 

Pope, the, 93, 95 

Portugal, Jews of, 6 

Prince of Wales (Arthur), 126 

Protocols :- — 
Anti- Anarchist (1904), 56 
Algeciras Conference (1906), 98-99 
Conference of Bucharest (1913), 47 
Conference of Constantinople 

(18561, 20, 23 
Conference of London (1830), 17. 18 
Conference, Madrid (1880), 90-98 
Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818). 

Congress of Berlin (1878), 25-33 
Great Britain, Russia, Prussia and 

Austria, 2, 3 
See also Conferences, Congresses 
and Treaties 

Prussia, Jews of, 6 

Prussia, King of, 114 

Radowitz, Herr von, 99 
Reglement, Franco-Moorish (1863), 

Religious Liberty, 1, 2, 3, 17, 20, 21 
" Restoration of the Hebrews, The," 

Revoil, M., 99 
Richelieu, 16 
Ristitch, 30 

Robinson, Sir Thomas, 7, 9, 11 
Roosevelt, Theodore, 37, 99 
Rothschild, Sir Anthony de, 19 
Rothschild, Baron James de, 19, 20 
Rothschild, Baron Lionel de, 19 
Rothschild, Leopold de, 13 
Rothschild, Lord, 36, 37, 55, 56, 58 
Rothschild, Lord (second), 124 
Rothschild, Nathan, 13 
Rumania, 24, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 48 
Rumania' and the Powers (1902), 36- 

Rumania, American Circular Note on, 

Rumania, Identic Note to (1880), 35- 

Rumania, Jews of, 28 
Rumanian Constitution, Art. VII, 

Russell, Earl, 81, 86 (see Russell, 

Lard John) 
Russell, Lord John, 68, 69, 70 
Russia, Jews in, 54, 76-78, 81-83 
" Russian Government and the 

Massacres," 54 
Russian Jews in Palestine, 84, 85 
Russian Jews, persecution of, 5 
Russian Revolution, 54 
Russian Secret Document-!, 62 
Russo-American Treaty (1832), 75 
Russo-American Treaty (1832), de- 
nunciation of. 79-80 
Ryswick, Conference of (1697), 103 

Sabbathai Zevi, 103 
Sager, M., 99 



Salisbury, Marquis of, 26, 27, 31, 32, 

34, 69, 82, 106 
Samuel, Henry, Case of, 64 
Sanderson, Sir T. BL, 69, 82 
Santa Cruz, Sub-Prior of, 126 
Saxony, 66 
Sohiff, Jacob, 36, 37 
Schouvaloff, Count, 26, 27, 28, 30 
Secret Agreement (Palestine) (1917), 

107, 124 
Secret Note to Swiss Diet, French 

(1826), 72 
Semenoff, M., 54, 62] 
Servia, 24, 27, 28, 29; 32 
Servia, Jews of, 28 
Seward, William H. (U.S. Secretary 

of State), 75 
Sidi Mohammed, Sultan of Morocco, 

Socialists, 59, 60, 61 
Solyman the Magnificent, 63, 64 
Spain, Jews of, 6 
Stratford de Redcliffe. Lord, 19 
Straus, Oscar, 37, 103 
Stroock, 67 

Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz, 126 
Suliotis, M., 36 
Sweden, 4, 57 
Switzerland, 65, 66, 67, 68 
" Switzerland and American Jews," 

Switzerland, Jews in, 72-73 

Tatistcheff, M., 105 

Testa, Jonkheer, 99 

Thirty Years War, 2 

Thornton, Sir E., 81 

Toledano, Isaac, 89, 91 

Treaties : — 

American-Swiss (1855), 66, 67, 73 
Anglo-Moorish (1727-8), 87 
Anglo-Moorish (1856), 83, 87 
Anglo-Russian (1859), 68, 80 
Anglo Swiss (1855), 67, 73 
Anglo- Turkish (1809), 87 

Berlin (1878), 24, 37 

Bucharest (1913), 50 

Carlowitz (1699), 64, 71, 100 

Franco-Swiss (1827), 65, 71 

Franco-Swiss (1864), 68, 73 

London (1840), 106 

London (1864), 49 

Madrid (1880), 91 

Munster (1648), 2 

Osnabruck (1648), 2 

Paris (1856), 20-22 

Passarowitz (1718), 71, 100 

Russo-American (1832), 68, 70, 75 

San Stefano (1878), 27, 31 

Tientsin (1858), 3 

Vienna (1815), 13-15 

See also Conferences, Congresses, 
Conventions, Protocols and 
Turkey, 31, 33, 37, 40, 63, 64, 65 
Turkey, Jews in, 19 

Ubicini, " Question des Princi- 

pautes," 23 
United States, 46, 66, 67 
United States, Religious Liberty in, 

Universal Suffrage, 61 

Vatican, 60, 61 

Vaudois, persecution of the, 4 

Veni/elos, M., 47 

Visconti Venosta, Viscount, 99 

Waddington, M., 25, 26, 28, 29, 93 
Wallachia, Jews in, 19, 21 
Wallachians and Moldavians, 23 
Warsaw, British Jews in, 68 
Way, Rev. Lewis, 15, 16 
Wellington, Duke of, 13, 16 
Westphalia, Peace of, 2 
White, Henry, 98, 99 
White, Sir W. A., 34, 36 

INDEX 133 

William II, Emperor of Germany, 56 " World's Great Restoration, The," 

William III, King of England, 103 100 

Wilson, Charles S., 38 Wyshnigradski.'M., 55 

Witte, Count, 56 

Wolf, Lucien, 54, 58 ; "Sir Moses 

Montefiore," 89 Zion, Mount, 116 

Wolf, Simon, 37 Zionism, 103, 104, 107, 124 

Printed by Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co. Ltd. 
Colchester, London & Eton, England 

University of Toronto 


REMOVE [f ^| 



FROM \\ 



Acme Library Card Pocket